Focus on the Family [censored] Warning About the 6/8 IGREA Hearing

[TheEngineer]

http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/gambling/cog/A000004244.cfm . It sounds like a mirror-image of our actions. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

-------------------------------------------

Internet Gambling Take Action
3-29-2007

by Chad Hills


In 2005, U.S. citizens illegally exported $6 billion dollars to unknown, unaccountable foreign online casinos. Congress passed legislation to stop Internet gambling in the U.S., but the Department of Treasury needs to hear your voice to keep this legislation strong. Representative Barney Frank, however, introduced dangerous legislation that would legalize Internet gambling and promote its expansion. The fight is on and we need your help to defend the family!



NEWS FLASH: Barney Frank Bill Threatens Families, National Security



Representative Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, sponsored a bill (H.R. 2046) that would legalize Internet gambling in the United States. His bill, if passed, will undo nearly a decade of Congressional efforts to protect children and families from gambling predators on the Internet. It also threatens homeland security in the midst of terrorist threats.

Before the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 was signed into law, children were being assaulted by Internet pop-ups and advertisements for more than 2,000 instant, online casinos. More than $6 billion left the U.S. economy and poured into questionable off-shore gambling operations. Barney Frank's bill must be defeated for the sake of children, families and homeland security.

This coming Friday, June 8, at 10 am, the House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing on Rep. Barney Frank's legislation, H.R. 2046, the "Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007." H.R 2046 has 19 Co-Sponsors.

H.R. 2046 sets up a scheme for legalizing, licensing and regulating Internet gambling operations. Rep. Barney Frank's bill excuses Internet gambling operators from prosecution or enforcement action under any Federal or State law, if they simply obtain a license and follow the bill's requirements. Thus, H.R. 2046 effectively overrides all other gambling regulations or limitations under Federal or State law.

Are you tired of being assaulted by thousands of online gambling pop-up ads? Are you worried about your children, a spouse or an extended family member becoming "hooked" on highly addictive Internet gambling? Barney Frank seems more concerned about a handful of poker players and the special interests of foreign casino operators.

Oppose Barney Frank's bill (H.R. 2046) and support strong regulations for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. Take action now!



Take Action - Barney Frank Bill

Oppose Barney Frank's legislation (H.R. 2046), because it jeopardizes the safety of our families and our nation.

The House of Representatives, specifically those who serve on the Financial Services Committee, need to hear an outcry from families and pro-family groups by this Thursday (6-7-07).


Fax, call or e-mail your Representative. Urge your Representative to oppose HR 2046. If your state has a Representative on the House Financial Services Committee, contact them as well (see Committee members). This Committee will hold a hearing on Barney Frank's bill this Friday (6-8-07).


Other Things You Can Do:

Submit testimony (your experience, your thoughts) about Internet gambling for the Congressional record (by 6-8-07).
Send out e-mails to friends to call their Representatives.
Mention this issue in your church, to radio programs or other pro-family organizations
Write to the local newspaper editor with your concerns.

[dlk9s]

I'm glad to see they addressed exactly how homeland security is threatened by online gambling.

[oldbookguy]

It is engineer, I even wrote to Focus on Family telling them how disappointed I was in them supporting the UIGEA since it contained LEGALIZED gaming, we should ALL do the same AND make this point to our reps as well, I did in one recent letter.

Also, FoF sent a letter to the White House, I responded to them as well as to how self serving and really disingenuous the stance is.

BTW, received a response today from Capito (R, HFSC) telling me she is aware of Franks bill, (I would hope since she serves there), lol.

Same BS response, I will keep your views in mind......

obg

[meleader2]

"Taxpayers and the federal government should not be burdened with monitoring thousands of separate, foreign gambling sites for corruption, illegal activities or jeopardizing homeland security."

But we should be burdened with trying to implement the UIGEA.

"Effective and strong regulations are necessary to ensure that the online gambling industry does not infiltrate millions of homes, destroy children, ruin families and mock U.S. laws prohibiting Internet gambling."

Unfortunately for them, this bill has the teeth of a 2 year old.

[NoahSD]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm glad to see they addressed exactly how homeland security is threatened by online gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. I like the part where they give the reader information so that he can make an informed decision about the issue.

[Skallagrim]

But its nice that they credited us "handful of poker players" for making this "dangerous" legislation possible /images/graemlins/wink.gif .

[Uglyowl]

Just who is CitizensLink...No surprise here! I can not get into the whole church thing due to the moral highground crap they spew, while we all know the controversy surrounding the churches and what has happened within their walls. I honestly don't know how all the churches will survive over the next 25 years with the importance of religion decreasing in America.

-------------------------------------------------------

Focus on the Family's Mission Statement: To cooperate with the Holy Spirit in sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as possible by nurturing and defending the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide.

Vision: Redeemed families, communities, and societies worldwide through Christ.

Good read about them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_on_the_family

[RoundGuy]

Focus on the Family is like sand in your crotch -- very, very irritating.

[CutCreator]

yeah, i now my kids were assaulted daily with pop ups demanding that they support terrorism by playing in the weekly Jihad madness tournament featuring bounties for Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

50% sign up bonus for infidels!

boy, thank god literally for the religious conservatives in this country, without them we wouldn't have anyone to tell us how to think.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
His bill, if passed, will undo nearly a decade of Congressional efforts to protect children and families from gambling predators on the Internet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, yeah, more like one night's worth of sleezeball efforts.

[1p0kerboy]

I am a Christian and am truely ashamed of this organization's lies and attempts to manipulate those who are less informed. This is really sad.

[1p0kerboy]

Do you think we could get an article published somewhere exposing each lie in the article they have written?

[MasterLJ]

[ QUOTE ]
His bill, if passed, will undo nearly a decade of Congressional efforts to protect children and families from gambling predators on the Internet. It also threatens white-handed gibbons natural mating grounds in Rangoon

[/ QUOTE ]

Edited for similar rationality.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
It is engineer, I even wrote to Focus on Family telling them how disappointed I was in them supporting the UIGEA since it contained LEGALIZED gaming

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad you told them, but they are very happy to work on things incrementally. Here's an article (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-abort6jun06,0,4455370.story?coll=la-home-center) on their incremental approach to banning abortion in America. The article is revealing in that Dobson has evangelical opponents who feel Dobson should be going for an all-or-nothing approach on abortion.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
But its nice that they credited us "handful of poker players" for making this "dangerous" legislation possible /images/graemlins/wink.gif .

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, FOF doesn't stand for Focus on Facts. /images/graemlins/grin.gif More like 100,000+ handfuls of poker players.

[BluffTHIS!]

I want to give a different view of FOF than that contained in all the snarky and somewhat anti-Christian comments above. As posters here who also have read the SMP forum over time know, I am a Catholic Christian, and a conservative one. I however, unlike fundamentalists, do not in general have a problem with gambling (and my views on same can be found in the archived theread here (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/2716105/site_id/1#import) ).

Instead of just opposing FOF's efforts here because of the general anti-religious mindset some of you have, why not instead rebut their points on facts and logic? The correct way to do that is to differentiate poker from other forms of gambling, note that we support efforts to limit and help with gambling addictions, and to make it clear that we view this as a matter of the right of individuals to spend their money as they please. Same as with all the women who have 500 pairs of shoes and guys that have 1000 ties. And point out that to maintain otherwise, that they should be spending equal efforts to limit compulsive shopping and limiting the predatory practices of banks in regards to credit cards.

A lot of this fundamentalist anti-gambling rhetoric rests on wrong facts and illogical arguments (like "first comes gambling then prostitution and drugs and more crime, etc., etc."), and we as 2+2'ers who supposedly think better than the average american, should be pointing out those factual inaccuracies and logical fallacies. Because once we do that, then all they are left with is "we believe gambling is a sin and that we should impose that belief on others".

So the more productive approach is to do just that, i.e. stip all the BS away from their arguments and leave them with just the one that personal morality should be imposed by law even when same doesn't harm others.

And note that this manner of interacting with and discussing FOF is all the more necessary because of their political clout, and because Dr. Dobson isn't just one of those hustlers in clerical garb who only is out for a buck. He is a sincere Christian who hasn't had personal scandals that make it easy to attack him personally. So engage him and his followers in the political arena with better thinking and I guarantee that many Christians won't be as insistant as some are on imposing their beliefs when the other arguments that are piled on top of same are shown to be faulty. And making it clear that plenty of religious believers don't agree with them on this issue takes a lot of wind from their sails.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
I want to give a different view of FOF than that contained in all the snarky and somewhat anti-Christian comments above. ... Instead of just opposing FOF's efforts here because of the general anti-religious mindset some of you have ...

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree with the rest of your post, this is uncalled for. I am neither anti-religious nor anti-Christian, but I am strongly opposed to most of what groups like FOF represent.

[BluffTHIS!]

whang,

Noted. But there is no reason to even mention "the rest of the stuff", because it will only be taken as anti-religious opposition instead of reasoned opposition. Don't make it easy on them.

[RainFall]

These guys are just as bad as the terrorists really. They're two sides of the same coin. Both fundamentalists trying to destroy America.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I want to give a different view of FOF than that contained in all the snarky and somewhat anti-Christian comments above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which comments did you find anti-Christian? I just read all of them and couldn't find any. There are some comments against Focus, but that's not the same as being against Christianity (as much as Dobson likes to think it is).

As gambling is not a sin and is not referenced negatively in the Bible, I'd suggest that Dobson's use of Jesus and Christianity to attack gambling is anti-Christian.

[ QUOTE ]
Instead of just opposing FOF's efforts here because of the general anti-religious mindset some of you have, why not instead rebut their points on facts and logic?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's one reason I posted the thread. Other reasons were to raise everyone's awareness of their efforts and to share FOFs embrace of fighting for incremental gain.

Sun Tzu wrote "know your enemy" in Art of War. I think we've had some substantive discussions on our opponents, and we need to continue to do so.

[monkeyman]

the focus on the family website is quite entertaining. sad thing is, there are people who actually believe what it says.

[TomVeil]

I appreciate the other side of the story, but read through that letter again. And then again. And one more time. And ask yourself if they are speaking because they are mis-informed or if they have an agenda.

To me it's clear that it's an agenda to legislate morality on those of us who don't share their beliefs. It's also clear to me that the group as a whole (not individual people) cannot be persuaded by reason and logic, in much the same way that Bush supporters cannot be persuaded by reason and logic.

I'm not anti-religion, or anti-faith. They are powerful things that can change people's life for the better. What I have a MAJOR problem with is trying to take those beliefs and imposing them on other people. And that goes a lot farther than internet poker.

[BluffTHIS!]

Engineer,

I inferred an anti-Christian bias on the part of some posters because of unecessarily bringing in other issues and noting opposition to FOF's position on same. I should have been more clear though in that I really meant opposing the political positions that some Christian organizations take with the implied inference that religious believers shouldn't be free as any other citizen to get their values where they wish. I don't want to sidetrack this thread on a fuller discussion of this.

Regarding their "incremental strategy", I don't think that is important per se here, as what is important are their facutal and logical shortcomings in their arguments. Where the incremental thing comes in, is in negotiating with those in general opposed to gambling on just how gambling is to be regulated. For instance we shouldn't shortchange ourselves and agree to limits on games, stakes levels etc., when they would indeed like to restrict same in its entireity. This comes into play when politicians think that can straddle the fence like this. Either we have a right to spend our money as we please or we don't, and the size of that spending shouldn't be negotiated away, like in Florida and other locations with their stakes limitations.

[Legislurker]

Good read on FOF, their strengths and problems. Compared to them we are a mere handful. I don't think we want to provoke their ire or special attention. If the link requires you to be a subscriber still, and you want to read, I will PM you a text of it.
The link is messed up, wil repost

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]

As gambling is not a sin and is not referenced negatively in the Bible, I'd suggest that Dobson's use of Jesus and Christianity to attack gambling is anti-Christian.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to ask about this.

I always read/hear Christians (not all of them, obviously) rail against gambling because it's a sin. So there's nothing in the Bible about it at all? This is all just made up?

I have never understood why people think betting money on a card game (or for some, even simply PLAYING a card game) is immoral. If there was something in the Bible about it, I could at least understand fundamentalists having an problem with it.

[MasterLJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As gambling is not a sin and is not referenced negatively in the Bible, I'd suggest that Dobson's use of Jesus and Christianity to attack gambling is anti-Christian.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to ask about this.

I always read/hear Christians (not all of them, obviously) rail against gambling because it's a sin. So there's nothing in the Bible about it at all? This is all just made up?

I have never understood why people think betting money on a card game (or for some, even simply PLAYING a card game) is immoral. If there was something in the Bible about it, I could at least understand fundamentalists having an problem with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible has many versus concerning wealth. And I paraphrase one, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to ascend to Heaven."

Funny... when you see someone like Herr Bush making $400k a year, no one says anything.

On a tangent, this country is going to hell in a handbasket. Your ideas and beliefs should never extrapolate to everyone in a free society full of many cultures. When it hurts you, speak up... else go back to your path of piety and leave me the [censored] alone.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Good read on FOF, their strengths and problems. Compared to them we are a mere handful. I don't think we want to provoke their ire or special attention. If the link requires you to be a subscriber still, and you want to read, I will PM you a text of it. http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8776546

[/ QUOTE ]

We as poker players certainly have their attention. That's actually why I posted the thread. True, we don't want their attention by name (like them posting here to spam us), so I wouldn't make a point of taunting them on their sites with a link back to here, of course.

[Uglyowl]

The group is very anti-gay so they will not derail Barney Frank. I hope Frank sticks it to them.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good read on FOF, their strengths and problems. Compared to them we are a mere handful. I don't think we want to provoke their ire or special attention. If the link requires you to be a subscriber still, and you want to read, I will PM you a text of it. http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8776546

[/ QUOTE ]

We as poker players certainly have their attention. That's actually why I posted the thread. True, we don't want their attention by name (like them posting here to spam us), so I wouldn't make a point of taunting them on their sites with a link back to here, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rereading that and watching Stewart recently, I had an idea I would love to see come to fruition. Larry Flint has offered a million to anyone who can document a member of Congress having improper sex. Maybe something similar listing congresspeople who have gambled large sums of money or participated in illegal home or DC cardgames. Not sure if Flint would put the money up or not, but as I recall he is a blackjack freak.

[BluffTHIS!]

Lurker,

That kind of stuff will only alienate politicians who are our supporters. Focus on the shortcomings of their arguments and not attacking them personally if you want to be seen as a reasonable person making a reasonable request to be able to spend your money as you please when you don't harm others.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
The group is very anti-gay so they will not derail Barney Frank. I hope Frank sticks it to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

For a group who claim to be loving (FOF, not Christians in general), they sure have no love for Frank, nor he for them.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The group is very anti-gay so they will not derail Barney Frank. I hope Frank sticks it to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

For a group who claim to be loving (FOF, not Christians in general), they sure have no love for Frank, nor he for them.

[/ QUOTE ]


Engineer,

You all can do what you want and I'm through making my point. But I again maintain that the above kinds of comments just derail what should be the real discussion of this thread, which is how properly to respond in the political arena to the arguments of FOF and others against the legislation we want.

Note that they would make the distinction, which you don't and possibly aren't willing to make, between being "anti" gay acts/lifestyle morally, and being "anti" the persons who do those acts and live that lifestyle (and I'm not going to engage in a full blown debate on same here - the proper venue for same is the SMP forum).

The more you focus on who is making the arguments against our position and the other positions they hold, the more you dilute our real counter-arguments against their specific arguments in *this* gamling/poker issue.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As gambling is not a sin and is not referenced negatively in the Bible, I'd suggest that Dobson's use of Jesus and Christianity to attack gambling is anti-Christian.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to ask about this.

I always read/hear Christians (not all of them, obviously) rail against gambling because it's a sin. So there's nothing in the Bible about it at all? This is all just made up?

I have never understood why people think betting money on a card game (or for some, even simply PLAYING a card game) is immoral. If there was something in the Bible about it, I could at least understand fundamentalists having an problem with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they made it up. Fundamentalist Christians have a long history of basing morality not on the Bible, but on their ideas of what seems right and wrong. For example, some Baptists believe drinking one beer is sinful, yet Jesus himself made wine (a big miracle of His). And, He didn't make it for a sacrament. Rather, He made it for a PARTY!!! Seems inconsistent with the beliefs of people who claim to be his followers. Some fundamentalists think dancing is a sin. And, of course, many objected to all rock music. As for gambling, there isn't a word about it. Here's an interesting article that provides about as much justification as is possible from the Bible: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_93.htm#whySin . It's rather convoluted in terms of logic, but it essentially claims that the issue is that gambling is greed-driven. Supposedly, the "greed" is in wanting something for nothing.

One objection I have to this is that I think it contradicts the Biblical story "Parable of the Talents", where making money not from sweat and labor, but from interest and profit, is praised. See Matthew 25:14-30 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Talents . Other verses in the Bible instruct us to use our gifts to the maximum.

So, am I sinfully greedy if I use my poker skills to make an equivalent hourly income to what I make at my day job (if that were the case)? After all, if the money's the same, is it greed? Am I sinfully greedy for working overtime? Is it sinful if my opponent derives enjoyment from playing poker while I derive income? In that case, it's win-win. I think the answer is "no". Furthermore, gambling existed in Jesus' day. Why no word of it being wrong?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The group is very anti-gay so they will not derail Barney Frank. I hope Frank sticks it to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

For a group who claim to be loving (FOF, not Christians in general), they sure have no love for Frank, nor he for them.

[/ QUOTE ]


Engineer,

You all can do what you want and I'm through making my point. But I again maintain that the above kinds of comments just derail what should be the real discussion of this thread, which is how properly to respond in the political arena to the arguments of FOF and others against the legislation we want.

Note that they would make the distinction, which you don't and possibly aren't willing to make, between being "anti" gay acts/lifestyle morally, and being "anti" the persons who do those acts and live that lifestyle (and I'm not going to engage in a full blown debate on same here - the proper venue for same is the SMP forum).

The more you focus on who is making the arguments against our position and the other positions they hold, the more you dilute our real counter-arguments against their specific arguments in *this* gamling/poker issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but I think it's a fair point. FOF (not necessarily all Christians) and Frank have no mutual love. That's important for us to understand, and it adds value to the discussion.

As for your claim that FOF practices "hate the sin, love the sinner", it sure seems like some of them don't mind discriminating against gays and demonizing them. For example, Jerry Falwell said "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals" and "AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharoah's chariotters."

I'm a happy heterosexual, conservative Republican. I'm expressing what I see, and what Frank sees. We should understand this dynamic, IMO.

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
The group is very anti-gay so they will not derail Barney Frank. I hope Frank sticks it to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. And I know where he can stick it to them , too...

[BluffTHIS!]

Engineer,

I am done with this thread after this post. I hope most posters here recognize the folly of attempting to publicly make the arguments you are making, even if you and some others don't.

FOF and others have an argument against gambling that goes like this:

1) gambling is a sin
2) gambling causes X to happen that is bad for people and society at large.
3) [implied] people shouldn't be allowed to do things that harm themselves and not others.

Now instead of focusing on rebutting #2 and #3, which leaves them only with #1 which is only tenable to a minority of the population and politicians, you instead want to engage them on a battlefield of THEIR CHOOSING, i.e what is or is not the proper interpretation of the Bible and Christian morality. Which then allows them to paint you as anti-Christian/morality and be much more effective in rallying to their cause those who in general believe the same as them, but aren't otherwise likely to participate in the political process. You thus just help them to mobilize more support for THEIR purposes.

We aren't some kind of general purpose political party that engages FOF on a wide range of issues and needs to spend the effort on portraying them in a negative light overall. Rather we are a special interest group that can't afford to engage in those kinds of personal and broad range attacks, lest we alienate the fence sitters and make ourselves look unreasonable. We need to FOCUS on the non-morality aspects of our opponents' arguments, which we can easily refute, and which allows us to wage the battle on a field of OUR choosing.

But if you and others just can't help yourself and feel it necessary to blowhard about the nuances of morality because of your personal distaste with and disagreement with the overall positions of FOF and their allies, then go ahead. Just realize that not only are you putting that above what is the best political strategy for engaging our opponents, but also are using a dominated strategy given their political clout relative to ours, and risking dooming our chances. And obviously I am not talking about making random posts here, but on what we should say publicly, and what we should focus our efforts on.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I am done with this thread after this post. I hope most posters here recognize the folly of attempting to publicly make the arguments you are making, even if you and some others don't.

FOF and others have an argument against gambling that goes like this:

1) gambling is a sin
2) gambling causes X to happen that is bad for people and society at large.
3) [implied] people shouldn't be allowed to do things that harm themselves and not others.

Now instead of focusing on rebutting #2 and #3, which leaves them only with #1 which is only tenable to a minority of the population and politicians, you instead want to engage them on a battlefield of THEIR CHOOSING, i.e what is or is not the proper interpretation of the Bible and Christian morality. Which then allows them to paint you as anti-Christian/morality and be much more effective in rallying to their cause those who in general believe the same as them, but aren't otherwise likely to participate in the political process. You thus just help them to mobilize more support for THEIR purposes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not making any arguments at all. We're simply discussing FOF's viewpoints to undertand them better, so we know how to counteract their efforts. You've read my letters and emails, as I've been posting them here. I certainly wouldn't think we should debate anyone on the validity of their beliefs. Are you upset because we're talking about a Christian group?

[ QUOTE ]
We aren't some kind of general purpose political party that engages FOF on a wide range of issues and needs to spend the effort on portraying them in a negative light overall.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who are "we"? I'm just a poster expressing my opinion. Ask Mason.

[ QUOTE ]
we are a special interest group that can't afford to engage in those kinds of personal and broad range attacks, lest we alienate the fence sitters and make ourselves look unreasonable. We need to FOCUS on the non-morality aspects of our opponents' arguments, which we can easily refute, and which allows us to wage the battle on a field of OUR choosing.

But if you and others just can't help yourself and feel it necessary to blowhard about the nuances of morality because of your personal distaste with and disagreement with the overall positions of FOF and their allies, then go ahead. Just realize that not only are you putting that above what is the best political strategy for engaging our opponents, but also are using a dominated strategy given their political clout relative to ours, and risking dooming our chances. And obviously I am not talking about making random posts here, but on what we should say publicly, and what we should focus our efforts on.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are we having a discussion, or are you giving us an order?

[Skallagrim]

Bluffthis wrote:
"FOF and others have an argument against gambling that goes like this:

1) gambling is a sin
2) gambling causes X to happen that is bad for people and society at large.
3) [implied] people shouldn't be allowed to do things that harm themselves and not others.

Now instead of focusing on rebutting #2 and #3, which leaves them only with #1 which is only tenable to a minority of the population and politicians, you instead want to engage them on a battlefield of THEIR CHOOSING, i.e what is or is not the proper interpretation of the Bible and Christian morality."

In this statement he is absolutely correct, but I disagree with his conclusion from this point. Attacking the FOF on all three points is quite appropriate. Most Christians in this country are not fundamentalists and the case against gambling is quite debateable on theological grounds. Forcing the FOF to at least partially fight on their own turf is just that much less they have to fight with on the real turf, your 2 and 3 points.

But those are the real points, the "gambling = sin" apponent is a small factor precisely because most americans dont just believe in making sins a crime.

But they do believe in the government protecting us from ourselves. And I dont believe that we can talk them out of that compeletely. We have to do the "regulated is better protection against harm" argument, because they can understand that AND because we can win that argument.

But pointing out the hypocracy or intellectual incompetency of our faith-based opponents is never a bad tactic, it just isnt the most important tactic.

Skallagrim

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
For a group who claim to be loving (FOF, not Christians in general) ...

[/ QUOTE ]

[political rant]That is the most utterly remarkable thing about the religious right. Look at many of their isues and ask "Is this something Jesus would do." I mean, Pat Robertson publicly called for the execution of someone for Christ's sake.[/political rant]

[TheEngineer]

Agree.

Also, just for the record, I wasn't suggesting that we debate anyone on gambing being a sin. In fact, I agree that we should hope that's all they have for their arguement. I'd love that. My comments on sin vs man-made morality were in response to Bluffthis' comments that being anti-FOF equals being anti-Christian:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I want to give a different view of FOF than that contained in all the snarky and somewhat anti-Christian comments above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which comments did you find anti-Christian? I just read all of them and couldn't find any. There are some comments against Focus, but that's not the same as being against Christianity (as much as Dobson likes to think it is).

As gambling is not a sin and is not referenced negatively in the Bible, I'd suggest [not "suggest" as in using for an argument against FOF, but "suggest" to Bluffthis that Dobson's use of Jesus and Christianity to attack gambling is anti-Christian.

[/ QUOTE ]

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For a group who claim to be loving (FOF, not Christians in general) ...

[/ QUOTE ]

[political rant]That is the most utterly remarkable thing about the religious right. Look at many of their isues and ask "Is this something Jesus would do." I mean, Pat Robertson publicly called for the execution of someone for Christ's sake.[/political rant]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. SOME of them "love the sinner and hate the sin"...except that they hope the sinner dies from AIDS and burns in hell. Again, it's good to understand our opponent and the ways in which they communicate.

[TheJared]

No one actually cares what these people think and if we dignify them by a response we only give them more power. Anyone whose going to be swayed by their arguement wasn't going to be on our side in the first place.

The best effect we can continue to have is make our own voice heard instead of trying to stamp out anyone elses.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
No one actually cares what these people think and if we dignify them by a response we only give them more power. Anyone whose going to be swayed by their arguement wasn't going to be on our side in the first place.

The best effect we can continue to have is make our own voice heard instead of trying to stamp out anyone elses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. We shouldn't debate them, but we do have to try to match their activism by writing and calling Congress, the Treasury Dept, and the DOJ, IMO. I posted this so we'd all know what they're up to in terms of activism, plus a little bit about how they think to enhance our understanding of our adversaries.

[Jerry D]

The lunatic fringe Republican religious nuts don't have to play poker if they don't want too - and NO ONE IS FORCING THEM TOO. But they shouldn't stop me from doing what I, as an ADULT in a free country wants to do with his money. That is the problem with the current Republican party - they DO NOT BELIEVE IN SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, and think the state should stop people from doing things that they consider 'sins.' These Republican Focus on the Family people also want to outlaw R rated movies, Playboy magazine, and make it illegal for music artists to put out cd's that have any cuss words in them.

- - - -

"I will never, ever vote for another Republican." ~ Doyle Brunson

[Cactus Jack]

Groups like this have pushed the Republican Party to the brink of disaster. The lunatic fringe has had control, but it's pretty obvious the leadership is trying to pull it back. If they don't, they'll be the minority party for a very long time. It's gone too far.

These people have become the equivalent of the tree-huggers on the left side. Lots of noise, but nobody listening anymore. The President maybe, but he's already a lame duck.

Personally, I'm not returning to the Fifties.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
"I will never, ever vote for another Republican." ~ Doyle Brunson

[/ QUOTE ]

Just curious, where is Doyle quoted as saying that?

[Jerry D]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"I will never, ever vote for another Republican." ~ Doyle Brunson

[/ QUOTE ]

Just curious, where is Doyle quoted as saying that?

[/ QUOTE ]

He has said it all over the place in numerous interviews. He said it on Fox News when the ban first happened, he said the same on Late Night Poker, and other places. There are search engines on the internet you can use to find things like this.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
But if you and others just can't help yourself and feel it necessary to blowhard about the nuances of morality because of your personal distaste with and disagreement with the overall positions of FOF and their allies, then go ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Other "blowhards" include Barney Frank, who (effectively, IMHO) mentioned the lack of a gambling prohibition in the Bible on the House floor at today's IGREA hearing. Maybe you should let him know your opinion on the topic.

I personally feel it's effective to show the hypocracy of our opposition. We shouldn't get into a theological debate with FOF, but the simple statement "there's no gambling prohibition in the Bible" goes a long way to showing that our opponents oppose gambing not for religious reasons, but simply becuase they don't like.

[Legislurker]

What it comes down to is stewardship. You are called on by God to be a good steward of your money. Even if you yourself are making a profit, someone is paying you and paying the rake. So the fish are sinning by being bad stewards of their money. Without getting into the differences between mainstream protestant denominations and the modern evangelical/charismatics, a simple way of putting it is.........The better you do with your money, the more favor from God you have incurred. Part of the whole sales pitch(and these people are AWESOME at sales) is get God, get a better life, and money is a big part of it.

[questions]

So a government which is trillions of dollars in debt (and rising) feels that it possesses the moral fiber to lecture its constituents about financial stewardship? I don't think so. I mean, I understand your post, it's just that it's obvious what BS the argument is. These "good Christians" are such philistines. They build out of crystal these multi-million dollar air-conditioned cathedrals while people starve and die in Africa and elsewhere. Repulsive.

[Skallagrim]

In reply to Legislurker: So Daniel N. (a self professed christian) is much closer to god than the social worker who cares for the mentally retarded? He certainly has more money than her, and continues to make more....

This is actually a very good example of why faith based reasoning has no place in making social policy.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
What it comes down to is stewardship. You are called on by God to be a good steward of your money. Even if you yourself are making a profit, someone is paying you and paying the rake. So the fish are sinning by being bad stewards of their money. Without getting into the differences between mainstream protestant denominations and the modern evangelical/charismatics, a simple way of putting it is.........The better you do with your money, the more favor from God you have incurred. Part of the whole sales pitch(and these people are AWESOME at sales) is get God, get a better life, and money is a big part of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

They have a weak, convoluted argument there, I think, as "good stewardship" would involve never spending to excess, ever.

Today's hearing showed the validity of questioning the validity of FOF's claim that gambling is a sin. Again, not a debate, but a simple statement that "it's not in the Bible" to expose the hypocrisy of their position. It may not suit one guy here, but it scored points at today's hearing.

[jbrent33]

[ QUOTE ]


Rereading that and watching Stewart recently, I had an idea I would love to see come to fruition. Larry Flint has offered a million to anyone who can document a member of Congress having improper sex. Maybe something similar listing congresspeople who have gambled large sums of money or participated in illegal home or DC cardgames. Not sure if Flint would put the money up or not, but as I recall he is a blackjack freak.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you are on to something. In my experience one thing that can almost always be counted on in religious zealots is hypocrisy. Some examples that immediately come to mind:

James Dobson's good buddy and fellow gay hater Ted Haggard is (was? can you really get "cured") a closet homosexual.

William Bennett, author of The Book of Virtues and co-founder of Empower America (a group with a strong anti-casino position among other things) is a degenerate slot junkie.

Rush Limbaugh (surely no explanation needed) is a pill head.

I am sure there more appropriate strategies for fighting the mullahs of the Christian right but I for one would like to see FTP and Stars pony up 500K each for information regarding the gambling habits of members of Congress. They should also check their own records and see who has an account.

[Legislurker]

Im not saying "closer to God". What these people sell, and evangelicals SELL what they preach, is a lifestyle for lack of a better word. Part and parcel of adopting their preaching is a MATERIALLY better life. Their megachurches thrive in urban areas. People who are or were poor and uneducated are large parts of their flocks. Shut-in older people who hear them on TV or the radio. And, yes, they have had successes improving people's lives by better managing money. They do not hold back when showing off wealth and "success in God". You can almost draw a straight line back to 17th century Dutch Calvinist merchants equating
their wealth from trade as a sign of being predestined for heaven. As having experience with these people in daily life, and having friends and family having bought into it, Im trying to relate to you where they have a PARTICULAR loathing for gambling. Ive read their books and publication, even heard a roadio braodcast or two, and its almost fascinating the hatred of gambling. Look at the huge popularity of Clark Howard and Dave Ramsey and others. They even have a Christian FInancial broadcasting network. This is not the Christianity of Christ saying, "One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me." Theirs is the mercantile version from the Old testament of tithing and hoarding and getting rich without losing heaven, if you can.
Its just my humble opinion on why they so hate gambling, probably not right but based on experience of their movement.

[PBJaxx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Rereading that and watching Stewart recently, I had an idea I would love to see come to fruition. Larry Flint has offered a million to anyone who can document a member of Congress having improper sex. Maybe something similar listing congresspeople who have gambled large sums of money or participated in illegal home or DC cardgames. Not sure if Flint would put the money up or not, but as I recall he is a blackjack freak.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you are on to something. In my experience one thing that can almost always be counted on in religious zealots is hypocrisy. Some examples that immediately come to mind:

James Dobson's good buddy and fellow gay hater Ted Haggard is (was? can you really get "cured") a closet homosexual.

William Bennett, author of The Book of Virtues and co-founder of Empower America (a group with a strong anti-casino position among other things) is a degenerate slot junkie.

Rush Limbaugh (surely no explanation needed) is a pill head.

I am sure there more appropriate strategies for fighting the mullahs of the Christian right but I for one would like to see FTP and Stars pony up 500K each for information regarding the gambling habits of members of Congress. They should also check their own records and see who has an account.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is NOT a good idea. By pointing out this kind of hypocrisy you only support the side that says gambling is bad, you just call out that person as being bad as well. Besides, citing extreme examples of behavior from individual people has no place in this process. It is like pointing out that one kid robbed a bank because he acquired an online gambling debt, and we know how effective that is against us.

[jbrent33]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Rereading that and watching Stewart recently, I had an idea I would love to see come to fruition. Larry Flint has offered a million to anyone who can document a member of Congress having improper sex. Maybe something similar listing congresspeople who have gambled large sums of money or participated in illegal home or DC cardgames. Not sure if Flint would put the money up or not, but as I recall he is a blackjack freak.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you are on to something. In my experience one thing that can almost always be counted on in religious zealots is hypocrisy. Some examples that immediately come to mind:

James Dobson's good buddy and fellow gay hater Ted Haggard is (was? can you really get "cured") a closet homosexual.

William Bennett, author of The Book of Virtues and co-founder of Empower America (a group with a strong anti-casino position among other things) is a degenerate slot junkie.

Rush Limbaugh (surely no explanation needed) is a pill head.

I am sure there more appropriate strategies for fighting the mullahs of the Christian right but I for one would like to see FTP and Stars pony up 500K each for information regarding the gambling habits of members of Congress. They should also check their own records and see who has an account.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is NOT a good idea. By pointing out this kind of hypocrisy you only support the side that says gambling is bad, you just call out that person as being bad as well. Besides, citing extreme examples of behavior from individual people has no place in this process. It is like pointing out that one kid robbed a bank because he acquired an online gambling debt, and we know how effective that is against us.

[/ QUOTE ]
That was pretty effective, right? It made national news. If a story was to break that several prominent anti-gambling Senators had a weekly 1K buy-in game in an office on the Hill it would hurt our cause? Explain how, I don't get it.

[MyPC8MyMoney]

When churches start messing with government it becomes time to start taxing their profits.

SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE ? OR CHURCH RUNNING STATE ?

You decide :-)

[PBJaxx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is like pointing out that one kid robbed a bank because he acquired an online gambling debt, and we know how effective that is against us.


[/ QUOTE ]

That was pretty effective, right? It made national news. If a story was to break that several prominent anti-gambling Senators had a weekly 1K buy-in game in an office on the Hill it would hurt our cause? Explain how, I don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may have been a bad example. They aren't the same thing. In a simplistic idiot world someone could say:

Online gambling leads kid to rob bank --> Online gambling = bad

You cannot, however, conclude this:

Congressman says online gambling is bad, but he does it himself --> Online gambling is okay

Calling out a congressman only identifies hipocracy of one man, it does not say anything to the appropriateness of the law. In fact, if the gambling of a congressman caused family/financial issues, it may actually strengthen their stance.

[PBJaxx]

I should point out that the original idea is not without merit. If it were some home games filled with congress people, I guess it could be good. I just want to avoid pointing out any "bad" aspects associated with gambling such as big losses or an illegal game.

[Legislurker]

I guess my ideal scenario for the hypocrisy part would run like this, "Mr. President, do you feel the least bit uncomfortable signing legislation that stop the average American from playing a $10 poker tournament in his home, while you have a monthly ILLEGAL home poker game in Crawford or DC where lobbyists and industrialists lose thousands of dollars to you to curry favor?" That probably will never come to pass as the soft left media hates gambling as well.

[PBJaxx]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess my ideal scenario for the hypocrisy part would run like this, "Mr. President, do you feel the least bit uncomfortable signing legislation that stop the average American from playing a $10 poker tournament in his home, while you have a monthly ILLEGAL home poker game in Crawford or DC where lobbyists and industrialists lose thousands of dollars to you to curry favor?" That probably will never come to pass as the soft left media hates gambling as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't get this. Does this make the average American say "jeez, online gambling should be legal!"?

It sounds to me that it is more likely to make them say "Our elected president is a law-breaking hipocrit, yada."

Am I missing something?

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess my ideal scenario for the hypocrisy part would run like this, "Mr. President, do you feel the least bit uncomfortable signing legislation that stop the average American from playing a $10 poker tournament in his home, while you have a monthly ILLEGAL home poker game in Crawford or DC where lobbyists and industrialists lose thousands of dollars to you to curry favor?" That probably will never come to pass as the soft left media hates gambling as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Home poker games are perfectly legal in most states, as long as no one takes a rake.

But I guess if you really want to go that route, you could start with Barack Obama.

linky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMdLUH23ZTo)

linky (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/10/wobama10.xml)

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess my ideal scenario for the hypocrisy part would run like this, "Mr. President, do you feel the least bit uncomfortable signing legislation that stop the average American from playing a $10 poker tournament in his home, while you have a monthly ILLEGAL home poker game in Crawford or DC where lobbyists and industrialists lose thousands of dollars to you to curry favor?" That probably will never come to pass as the soft left media hates gambling as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't get this. Does this make the average American say "jeez, online gambling should be legal!"?

It sounds to me that it is more likely to make them say "Our elected president is a law-breaking hipocrit, yada."

Am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone were to go this route, a better way to make the point while still using the same example would be something like this:

"Mr. President (or whoever is found to have a regular poker game), you have fun playing your Saturday night poker game, right? Just you and some friends or colleagues enjoying a game of cards and wagering a few bucks. Well, that's what millions of Americans would like to do in the comfort of their own homes, even if they can't get the boys together for a live game. They just want to play an enjoyable game of poker over the internet."

Something like that. Same example, but with a positive spin.

[questions]

Not accusing anyone of anything here, but I just wanted to say that there's something offensive about the idea that we need to ask permission of OUR public servants to ALLOW us (as adults) to engage in consensual behavior. /images/graemlins/mad.gif Last time I checked, this was a country of the people, by the people, for the people, not of our elected representatives who are to be treated as if they were aristocracy ruling some sort of nanny state.

[Dire]

Online gambling predators.

I wanna be an online gambling predator.

I'll predatorize you!

Pred pred pred!! Gamble gamble gamble!!! Arghhh!! AHOY!


Sure is annoying that groups like FoF can so easily work exclusively with scare tactics and disinformation, since they are always in opposition to something new, which would change the status quo - so they convince people that they'll be taken out of their 'comfort zone'. When you're a proponent of something, disinformation and scare tactics don't work since you're working on changing the status quo. It's amazing that anything progressive ever gets done in this country... oh wait.

[The Bandit Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
they DO NOT BELIEVE IN SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
When churches start messing with government it becomes time to start taxing their profits.

SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE ? OR CHURCH RUNNING STATE ?

You decide :-)

[/ QUOTE ]

It's obvious that you do not understand the intentions of the separation of Church and State. It's intent is to protect religion from the government; not the other way around.

[PBJaxx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess my ideal scenario for the hypocrisy part would run like this, "Mr. President, do you feel the least bit uncomfortable signing legislation that stop the average American from playing a $10 poker tournament in his home, while you have a monthly ILLEGAL home poker game in Crawford or DC where lobbyists and industrialists lose thousands of dollars to you to curry favor?" That probably will never come to pass as the soft left media hates gambling as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't get this. Does this make the average American say "jeez, online gambling should be legal!"?

It sounds to me that it is more likely to make them say "Our elected president is a law-breaking hipocrit, yada."

Am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone were to go this route, a better way to make the point while still using the same example would be something like this:

"Mr. President (or whoever is found to have a regular poker game), you have fun playing your Saturday night poker game, right? Just you and some friends or colleagues enjoying a game of cards and wagering a few bucks. Well, that's what millions of Americans would like to do in the comfort of their own homes, even if they can't get the boys together for a live game. They just want to play an enjoyable game of poker over the internet."

Something like that. Same example, but with a positive spin.

[/ QUOTE ]
100% agree

[Lottery Larry]

One would think that Barney Frank will NEVER be at the top of the "Favored Legislators" list for this group... even before the online bills.

[Landlord79]

[ QUOTE ]
I always read/hear Christians (not all of them, obviously) rail against gambling because it's a sin. So there's nothing in the Bible about it at all? This is all just made up?

I have never understood why people think betting money on a card game (or for some, even simply PLAYING a card game) is immoral. If there was something in the Bible about it, I could at least understand fundamentalists having an problem with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, they made it up. Fundamentalist Christians have a long history of basing morality not on the Bible, but on their ideas of what seems right and wrong. For example, some Baptists believe drinking one beer is sinful, yet Jesus himself made wine (a big miracle of His). And, He didn't make it for a sacrament. Rather, He made it for a PARTY!!! <font color="blue"> QFT, but it does say "not to be drunk", some people can't stop at just a few drinks, hence the bad reputation of alcohol. I myself like a glass of wine from time to time, but I have full control over myself in this issue and it isn't a problem for me. Some try to impose limitations for the whole of society because of their need for everyone to abide by the same "rules" as they do, this isn't correct. Everyone has their own stuggles with temptation. A full reading of the writings of Paul will clarify this issue for anyone interesting in taking the time to read it, but it is much too indepth to explore on this thread. </font> Seems inconsistent with the beliefs of people who claim to be his followers. As for gambling, there isn't a word about it. <font color="blue"> QFT, I looked </font> Here's an interesting article that provides about as much justification as is possible from the Bible: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_93.htm#whySin . It's rather convoluted in terms of logic, but it essentially claims that the issue is that gambling is greed-driven. Supposedly, the "greed" is in wanting something for nothing.

One objection I have to this is that I think it contradicts the Biblical story "Parable of the Talents", where making money not from sweat and labor, but from interest and profit, is praised. See Matthew 25:14-30 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Talents . Other verses in the Bible instruct us to use our gifts to the maximum. <font color="blue"> You're so off on your interpretation of this parable that I can't even agree with you. Interest was the minimum that God requires from us, which the metaphor translates as sitting on our hands and not telling anyone about Christ and keeping God's love bottled up inside. This parable has plenty of meaning in the physical, but it should be read for the spiritual. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a Christian and my church supports and is based on a lot of the same beliefs of FOF, I don't agree with them on this issue because it is trying to put limitations on the whole of society because some can't handle their gambling. I think what Dr Dobson does is awesome, and he is right in thinking that as the family deteriorates, so does the morality of the society. But morality doesn't create disciples of Christ, Christ wants a relationship with us, and that relationship creates morality and cures us of our addictions and gives us true life.

Playing poker allows me to win some "monies" and have the occassional opportunity to minister to someone about Christ. I'm not a you have to quit sinning now before you can be saved Christian, I'm one who encourages you to get saved then let Christ pull out what he needs to pull out from you Christian. I don't judge, nor will I. Christ takes us as we are then makes us better.

I guess what I want to say is, Dr Dobson has done more for our country than many of you will ever think about doing, and just because he has stepped on our toes with this one issue doesn't make him a villain. His beliefs are Biblical and his intentions are good, so we don't need to attack him, we just need to defend what is important to us, while keeping things in their proper perspective.

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess what I want to say is, Dr Dobson has done more for our country than many of you will ever think about doing, and just because he has stepped on our toes with this one issue doesn't make him a villain. His beliefs are Biblical and his intentions are good, so we don't need to attack him, we just need to defend what is important to us, while keeping things in their proper perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but this paragraph is nonsense. His involvement in politicking with regard to online gambling should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone who's paid any attention to his active involvement in the political process, and I'm sure he's just getting started. Before you know it, we won't be able to dance in public or wear cotton/rayon blends, or get divorced, injunctions against which are also in the Bible.

[Landlord79]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess what I want to say is, Dr Dobson has done more for our country than many of you will ever think about doing, and just because he has stepped on our toes with this one issue doesn't make him a villain. His beliefs are Biblical and his intentions are good, so we don't need to attack him, we just need to defend what is important to us, while keeping things in their proper perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but this paragraph is nonsense. His involvement in politicking with regard to online gambling should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone who's paid any attention to his active involvement in the political process, and I'm sure he's just getting started. Before you know it, we won't be able to dance in public or wear cotton/rayon blends, or get divorced, injunctions against which are also in the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, a few more examples, but if he's right about Christ being the only way to heaven, and therefore the judgment of God to come later, we will really wish that we had listened to him more because the 80 years that we have on this earth is nothing compared to eternity.

Are you saying that Christians should just lay down and not defend themselves from the attack of this changing world? If gays and lesbians can fight for their rights to be married, is it wrong for the church to fight to keep the right of having prayer in schools?

[CHAx]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer,

I am done with this thread after this post. I hope most posters here recognize the folly of attempting to publicly make the arguments you are making, even if you and some others don't.

FOF and others have an argument against gambling that goes like this:

1) gambling is a sin
2) gambling causes X to happen that is bad for people and society at large.
3) [implied] people shouldn't be allowed to do things that harm themselves and not others.

Now instead of focusing on rebutting #2 and #3, which leaves them only with #1 which is only tenable to a minority of the population and politicians, you instead want to engage them on a battlefield of THEIR CHOOSING, i.e what is or is not the proper interpretation of the Bible and Christian morality. Which then allows them to paint you as anti-Christian/morality and be much more effective in rallying to their cause those who in general believe the same as them, but aren't otherwise likely to participate in the political process. You thus just help them to mobilize more support for THEIR purposes.

We aren't some kind of general purpose political party that engages FOF on a wide range of issues and needs to spend the effort on portraying them in a negative light overall. Rather we are a special interest group that can't afford to engage in those kinds of personal and broad range attacks, lest we alienate the fence sitters and make ourselves look unreasonable. We need to FOCUS on the non-morality aspects of our opponents' arguments, which we can easily refute, and which allows us to wage the battle on a field of OUR choosing.

But if you and others just can't help yourself and feel it necessary to blowhard about the nuances of morality because of your personal distaste with and disagreement with the overall positions of FOF and their allies, then go ahead. Just realize that not only are you putting that above what is the best political strategy for engaging our opponents, but also are using a dominated strategy given their political clout relative to ours, and risking dooming our chances. And obviously I am not talking about making random posts here, but on what we should say publicly, and what we should focus our efforts on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
if he's right about Christ being the only way to heaven, and therefore the judgment of God to come later, we will really wish that we had listened to him more

[/ QUOTE ]

if the muslims are right, you're going to really wish you hadn't let your wife/daughter/sister show her face in public.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that Christians should just lay down and not defend themselves from the attack of this changing world? If gays and lesbians can fight for their rights to be married, is it wrong for the church to fight to keep the right of having prayer in schools?

[/ QUOTE ]
We are in this world, not of this world. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's...etc.

Please show me how it is Biblical for a Christian to get involved in political (worldly) issues. It isn't. James Dobson is a disgrace to all true Christians, with his political agenda.

[kleath]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that Christians should just lay down and not defend themselves from the attack of this changing world? If gays and lesbians can fight for their rights to be married, is it wrong for the church to fight to keep the right of having prayer in schools?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recall not being able to pray in school, you mean those prayer rally's I've seen were lies and just a front hang out and smoke pot? Or are you actually advocating the ridiculous notion of school leaders initiating school prayer, which is such a terrible and awful idea that it shouldn't have to be explained. Having been and been around Christians, very few of them actually act in the manner of Christ, I think Jesus would truly be ashamed of FotF as a whole.

[Skallagrim]

To the poster who believed that Rev. Dobson has done more good for this country than any of us, I ask you to rethink things.

I beleive Dobson has done more harm to both religion and politics than just about anyone else in recent memory.

Mixing religion and politics invariably produces bad politics and worse religion. Dont believe me? Consider Iran.

Let me try and illustrate the point by way of a parable. Most of the christian-political types are upset about gay rights. They want laws making gay marriage illegal, and stopping gays from doing a number of things. They believe it is right to push this agenda politically. My reading of Jesus' trachings leads me to the opposite conclusion. I think Jesus would demand not mere tolerance of gays but their complete and total acceptance. Put aside the theological debate and assume for a minute I convince the majority of people I am right. Am I then entitled to have a law passed making it illegal to not admit gays ANYWHERE? In other words, it would be illegal for you to NOT admit them to your church AND you have to allow them to all positions of authority and admit them to all sacraments. You go to jail otherwise. If you respond by saying the state shouldnt legislate in this area of personal beliefs, how can you go on asking the state to legislate against others' personal beliefs based on your persona beliefs?

Abortion is another example - if the state has the legal authority to ban abortions, does it not then also have the right to MANDATE abortions (as in China)? Maybe the state shouldnt have the right to interfere in pregnancy at all, eh?

Is that not enough to convince you that there should always be seperation of church and state? Either the state legislates your religion or the state stays out of your religion. Seems an easy choice...

Our founding fathers got it right and Jesus would agree, I think.

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's...."

If only Rev. Dobson were that good of a christian.

Skallagrim

[Landlord79]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if he's right about Christ being the only way to heaven, and therefore the judgment of God to come later, we will really wish that we had listened to him more

[/ QUOTE ]
QFT... LOL, good point
if the muslims are right, you're going to really wish you hadn't let your wife/daughter/sister show her face in public.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Landlord79]

[ QUOTE ]
To the poster who believed that Rev. Dobson has done more good for this country than any of us, I ask you to rethink things.

I beleive Dobson has done more harm to both religion and politics than just about anyone else in recent memory.

Mixing religion and politics invariably produces bad politics and worse religion. Dont believe me? Consider Iran.

Let me try and illustrate the point by way of a parable. Most of the christian-political types are upset about gay rights. They want laws making gay marriage illegal, and stopping gays from doing a number of things. They believe it is right to push this agenda politically. My reading of Jesus' trachings leads me to the opposite conclusion. I think Jesus would demand not mere tolerance of gays but their complete and total acceptance. Put aside the theological debate and assume for a minute I convince the majority of people I am right. Am I then entitled to have a law passed making it illegal to not admit gays ANYWHERE? In other words, it would be illegal for you to NOT admit them to your church AND you have to allow them to all positions of authority and admit them to all sacraments. You go to jail otherwise. If you respond by saying the state shouldnt legislate in this area of personal beliefs, how can you go on asking the state to legislate against others' personal beliefs based on your persona beliefs?

Abortion is another example - if the state has the legal authority to ban abortions, does it not then also have the right to MANDATE abortions (as in China)? Maybe the state shouldnt have the right to interfere in pregnancy at all, eh?

Is that not enough to convince you that there should always be seperation of church and state? Either the state legislates your religion or the state stays out of your religion. Seems an easy choice...

Our founding fathers got it right and Jesus would agree, I think.
<font color="blue"> "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's...."
</font>

If only Rev. Dobson were that good of a christian.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have time to respond to this, but you have completely missed the boat. This is referring to taxes and respect as an authority.

Separation of church and state works to protect religion, much like a corporation protects it's owners. The Founding Fathers were mostly Christian and wanted their Christian rights protected from the government. It was explained better above by someone else.

I may not be a sinless man, but I would invite you to walk a day w/ me and see the life that I live if you think that all Christians are hypocrites.

The basic law of the Bible is the law of love. God is forgiving and loving, but He is also Holy. I won't open that up to people who have never pondered and meditated on pure holiness, but if Christians don't stand up for their rights, then soon all their rights will be taken from them, just like anyone else who sits idly by.

And also, Jesus would love all gays w/o loving their actions. He takes us as we are, but doesn't expect us to stay the same. The Old and New Testament both point to homosexuality as sin, God, being holy, destroyed Sodom and Gamora because of this sin. Anyone Christian who says differently doesn't believe that ALL of God's word is true and therefore is not a true Christian, but a hypocrit, living a lie.

I have many friends who are unsaved and living in sin, I don't judge them and I accept them as they are, but like God, I hope for the salvation of their souls and the repentance of their sins.

May God bless you, I'm going home.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
The Founding Fathers were mostly Christian and wanted their Christian rights protected from the government.

[/ QUOTE ]
Source please. Preferably from the Founding Fathers themselves.

[ QUOTE ]
I may not be a sinless man, but I would invite you to walk a day w/ me and see the life that I live if you think that all Christias are hypocrites.

[/ QUOTE ]
All Christians are hypocrites. It's a matter of to what degree.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone Christian who says differently doesn't believe that ALL of God's word is true and therefore is not a true Christian, but a hypocrit, living a lie.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't open this can of worms, if I were you. Would you like me to point out about a hundred things in the Old and New Testament that Christians no longer believe are true? Are you really a true Christian then? Or do you just pick and choose what to believe...

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a Christian and my church supports and is based on a lot of the same beliefs of FOF, I don't agree with them on this issue because it is trying to put limitations on the whole of society because some can't handle their gambling. I think what Dr Dobson does is awesome, and he is right in thinking that as the family deteriorates, so does the morality of the society. But morality doesn't create disciples of Christ, Christ wants a relationship with us, and that relationship creates morality and cures us of our addictions and gives us true life.

Playing poker allows me to win some "monies" and have the occassional opportunity to minister to someone about Christ. I'm not a you have to quit sinning now before you can be saved Christian, I'm one who encourages you to get saved then let Christ pull out what he needs to pull out from you Christian. I don't judge, nor will I. Christ takes us as we are then makes us better.

I guess what I want to say is, Dr Dobson has done more for our country than many of you will ever think about doing, and just because he has stepped on our toes with this one issue doesn't make him a villain. His beliefs are Biblical and his intentions are good, so we don't need to attack him, we just need to defend what is important to us, while keeping things in their proper perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post. I have no issues with Dobson and what he and FOF do for those WITHIN THEIR OWN ORGANIZATION. I think it's fine that they don't wish to play poker. However, he's attacking our freedoms without any basis to do so (but pretending he does), so I wished to share that with the group. I think it's important that we understand our opposition.

As for Jesus making wine, he certainly was not making it for people to get drunk. Likewise, we don't wish for anyone to get addicted to Internet poker. That being said, I think it's safe to say alcohol has caused thousands of times more problems than poker ever could, yet Jesus felt we should be able to decide on our own how to handle alcohol. Anyway, I have no desire to get too deep into a theological discussion. I really just wanted to let people know that the Bible doesn't prohibit gambling. This was brought up at Friday's hearing to great effect.

[Skallagrim]

Landlord protests against accusations not made.

I never said anything about ALL christians, just one specfic grouping of them. The vast majority of christians understand the need to separate religious beliefs from political policy.

You are right about separation of church and state protecting religion so long as you mean minority religions and beliefs. The real freedom is freedom of conscience, and the founders understood it that way.

And of course, you didnt respond to may main point because I think you understand it all too well, if you claim the right to enforce your beliefs against me through the power of the state, arent I entitled to do the same with you once my side is the majority? Isnt it better to agree to a something like a "Bill of Rights" that protects both of us from each other? Of course.

Thats my beef with Dobson and his ilk, not their particular religious beliefs, the attempt to codify those beliefs as law simply because they are their beliefs. Ayatollah Dobson is more appropriate than Reverand Dobson IMHO.

If Dobson believes poker and/or gambling should be illegal, make the case on practical grounds and real evidence, not that it conflicts with the "true" word of god. Dont force me from playing poker and I wont force you to play. If you wanna throw in some simple regulation to protect the fools from themselves, I can live with that. I can live with reasonable taxes too (they tax every other thing thats fun except sex).

Skallagrim

[sevencard2003]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I always read/hear Christians (not all of them, obviously) rail against gambling because it's a sin. So there's nothing in the Bible about it at all? This is all just made up?

I have never understood why people think betting money on a card game (or for some, even simply PLAYING a card game) is immoral. If there was something in the Bible about it, I could at least understand fundamentalists having an problem with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, they made it up. Fundamentalist Christians have a long history of basing morality not on the Bible, but on their ideas of what seems right and wrong. For example, some Baptists believe drinking one beer is sinful, yet Jesus himself made wine (a big miracle of His). And, He didn't make it for a sacrament. Rather, He made it for a PARTY!!! <font color="blue"> QFT, but it does say "not to be drunk", some people can't stop at just a few drinks, hence the bad reputation of alcohol. I myself like a glass of wine from time to time, but I have full control over myself in this issue and it isn't a problem for me. Some try to impose limitations for the whole of society because of their need for everyone to abide by the same "rules" as they do, this isn't correct. Everyone has their own stuggles with temptation. A full reading of the writings of Paul will clarify this issue for anyone interesting in taking the time to read it, but it is much too indepth to explore on this thread. </font> Seems inconsistent with the beliefs of people who claim to be his followers. As for gambling, there isn't a word about it. <font color="blue"> QFT, I looked </font> Here's an interesting article that provides about as much justification as is possible from the Bible: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_93.htm#whySin . It's rather convoluted in terms of logic, but it essentially claims that the issue is that gambling is greed-driven. Supposedly, the "greed" is in wanting something for nothing.

One objection I have to this is that I think it contradicts the Biblical story "Parable of the Talents", where making money not from sweat and labor, but from interest and profit, is praised. See Matthew 25:14-30 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Talents . Other verses in the Bible instruct us to use our gifts to the maximum. <font color="blue"> You're so off on your interpretation of this parable that I can't even agree with you. Interest was the minimum that God requires from us, which the metaphor translates as sitting on our hands and not telling anyone about Christ and keeping God's love bottled up inside. This parable has plenty of meaning in the physical, but it should be read for the spiritual. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a Christian and my church supports and is based on a lot of the same beliefs of FOF, I don't agree with them on this issue because it is trying to put limitations on the whole of society because some can't handle their gambling. I think what Dr Dobson does is awesome, and he is right in thinking that as the family deteriorates, so does the morality of the society. But morality doesn't create disciples of Christ, Christ wants a relationship with us, and that relationship creates morality and cures us of our addictions and gives us true life.

Playing poker allows me to win some "monies" and have the occassional opportunity to minister to someone about Christ. I'm not a you have to quit sinning now before you can be saved Christian, I'm one who encourages you to get saved then let Christ pull out what he needs to pull out from you Christian. I don't judge, nor will I. Christ takes us as we are then makes us better.

I guess what I want to say is, Dr Dobson has done more for our country than many of you will ever think about doing, and just because he has stepped on our toes with this one issue doesn't make him a villain. His beliefs are Biblical and his intentions are good, so we don't need to attack him, we just need to defend what is important to us, while keeping things in their proper perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

HEY I HAVE ALWAYS SUPPORTED DR DOBSON AND OTHERS LIKE HIM, EXCEPT ON THIS ONE ISSUE. (GAMBLING) I LOVE THE WORK HE DOES AGAINST ONLINE PORNOGRAPHY AND AGAINST ABORTION, AND I ALWAYS VOTE CONSERVATIVE RIGHT WING REPUBLICANS. BUT SINCE IM DISABLED, AND WINNING ABOUT $500 A MONTH AT ONLINE POKER, AND CANNOT DRIVE TO A CASINO, IM A LITTLE UPSET ABOUT THIS ISSUE. YES I KNOW LOTS OF KIDS GET ONLINE WHO SHOULDNT AND I KNOW SOME PEOPLE BLOW ALL THEIR MONEY AT SLOTS WHO SHOULDNT AND I COULD CARE LESS IF ALL ONLINE SLOTS WERE banned. HOWEVER POKER AND BLACKJACK SHOUDL BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY AS GAMES OF SKILL THATS WHY I SUPPORT WEXLERS BILL IN FL SO MUCH, A LOT MORE THAN I DO BARNEY FRANKS. HE ADMITS POKER IS A GAME OF SKILL. I THINK IF DOBSON TRULY UNDERSTOOD POKER AS A GAME OF SKILL AND NOT ALL LUCK HE WOULDNT BE SO OPPOSED TO IT. EVIDENTLY HES ONE OF THE CROWD LIKE MY MOM WHO BELIEVES ALL GAMBLERS LOSE IN THE END. AND REFUSES TO BELIEVE SOME OF US ARE ACTUALLY BEATING THE GAME IN THE LONG RUN. WE HAVE GOT TO START CONVINCING PEOPLE POKER IS A GAME OF SKILL, AND NOT LUCK, THAT IS THE ONLY SHOT WE HAVE TO MAKE ONLINE POKER SAFE AND LEGAL.

[sevencard2003]

ok i just wrote focus on the familys website and showed them this post, hopefully they will comment.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
ok i just wrote focus on the familys website and showed them this post, hopefully they will comment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think they'll change their mind? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[tangled]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I always read/hear Christians (not all of them, obviously) rail against gambling because it's a sin. So there's nothing in the Bible about it at all? This is all just made up?

I have never understood why people think betting money on a card game (or for some, even simply PLAYING a card game) is immoral. If there was something in the Bible about it, I could at least understand fundamentalists having an problem with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, they made it up. Fundamentalist Christians have a long history of basing morality not on the Bible, but on their ideas of what seems right and wrong. For example, some Baptists believe drinking one beer is sinful, yet Jesus himself made wine (a big miracle of His). And, He didn't make it for a sacrament. Rather, He made it for a PARTY!!! <font color="blue"> QFT, but it does say "not to be drunk", some people can't stop at just a few drinks, hence the bad reputation of alcohol. I myself like a glass of wine from time to time, but I have full control over myself in this issue and it isn't a problem for me. Some try to impose limitations for the whole of society because of their need for everyone to abide by the same "rules" as they do, this isn't correct. Everyone has their own stuggles with temptation. A full reading of the writings of Paul will clarify this issue for anyone interesting in taking the time to read it, but it is much too indepth to explore on this thread. </font> Seems inconsistent with the beliefs of people who claim to be his followers. As for gambling, there isn't a word about it. <font color="blue"> QFT, I looked </font> Here's an interesting article that provides about as much justification as is possible from the Bible: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_93.htm#whySin . It's rather convoluted in terms of logic, but it essentially claims that the issue is that gambling is greed-driven. Supposedly, the "greed" is in wanting something for nothing.

One objection I have to this is that I think it contradicts the Biblical story "Parable of the Talents", where making money not from sweat and labor, but from interest and profit, is praised. See Matthew 25:14-30 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Talents . Other verses in the Bible instruct us to use our gifts to the maximum. <font color="blue"> You're so off on your interpretation of this parable that I can't even agree with you. Interest was the minimum that God requires from us, which the metaphor translates as sitting on our hands and not telling anyone about Christ and keeping God's love bottled up inside. This parable has plenty of meaning in the physical, but it should be read for the spiritual. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a Christian and my church supports and is based on a lot of the same beliefs of FOF, I don't agree with them on this issue because it is trying to put limitations on the whole of society because some can't handle their gambling. I think what Dr Dobson does is awesome, and he is right in thinking that as the family deteriorates, so does the morality of the society. But morality doesn't create disciples of Christ, Christ wants a relationship with us, and that relationship creates morality and cures us of our addictions and gives us true life.

Playing poker allows me to win some "monies" and have the occassional opportunity to minister to someone about Christ. I'm not a you have to quit sinning now before you can be saved Christian, I'm one who encourages you to get saved then let Christ pull out what he needs to pull out from you Christian. I don't judge, nor will I. Christ takes us as we are then makes us better.

I guess what I want to say is, Dr Dobson has done more for our country than many of you will ever think about doing, and just because he has stepped on our toes with this one issue doesn't make him a villain. His beliefs are Biblical and his intentions are good, so we don't need to attack him, we just need to defend what is important to us, while keeping things in their proper perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

HEY I HAVE ALWAYS SUPPORTED DR DOBSON AND OTHERS LIKE HIM, EXCEPT ON THIS ONE ISSUE. (GAMBLING) I LOVE THE WORK HE DOES AGAINST ONLINE PORNOGRAPHY AND AGAINST ABORTION, AND I ALWAYS VOTE CONSERVATIVE RIGHT WING REPUBLICANS. BUT SINCE IM DISABLED, AND WINNING ABOUT $500 A MONTH AT ONLINE POKER, AND CANNOT DRIVE TO A CASINO, IM A LITTLE UPSET ABOUT THIS ISSUE. YES I KNOW LOTS OF KIDS GET ONLINE WHO SHOULDNT AND I KNOW SOME PEOPLE BLOW ALL THEIR MONEY AT SLOTS WHO SHOULDNT AND I COULD CARE LESS IF ALL ONLINE SLOTS WERE banned. HOWEVER POKER AND BLACKJACK SHOUDL BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY AS GAMES OF SKILL THATS WHY I SUPPORT WEXLERS BILL IN FL SO MUCH, A LOT MORE THAN I DO BARNEY FRANKS. HE ADMITS POKER IS A GAME OF SKILL. I THINK IF DOBSON TRULY UNDERSTOOD POKER AS A GAME OF SKILL AND NOT ALL LUCK HE WOULDNT BE SO OPPOSED TO IT. EVIDENTLY HES ONE OF THE CROWD LIKE MY MOM WHO BELIEVES ALL GAMBLERS LOSE IN THE END. AND REFUSES TO BELIEVE SOME OF US ARE ACTUALLY BEATING THE GAME IN THE LONG RUN. WE HAVE GOT TO START CONVINCING PEOPLE POKER IS A GAME OF SKILL, AND NOT LUCK, THAT IS THE ONLY SHOT WE HAVE TO MAKE ONLINE POKER SAFE AND LEGAL.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know of course, you sound like the perfect person for the PPA to highlight and use. You're disabled and need online poker to be able to play poker. Also, and this is really big, you otherwise agree with the, ugh, people at FOF, so your bias is normally with them not with us, which skyrockets your creditability and attractivenes.

Have you thought about this?

[LegallyBlind]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer,

I am done with this thread after this post. I hope most posters here recognize the folly of attempting to publicly make the arguments you are making, even if you and some others don't.

FOF and others have an argument against gambling that goes like this:

1) gambling is a sin
2) gambling causes X to happen that is bad for people and society at large.
3) [implied] people shouldn't be allowed to do things that harm themselves and not others.

Now instead of focusing on rebutting #2 and #3, which leaves them only with #1 which is only tenable to a minority of the population and politicians, you instead want to engage them on a battlefield of THEIR CHOOSING, i.e what is or is not the proper interpretation of the Bible and Christian morality. Which then allows them to paint you as anti-Christian/morality and be much more effective in rallying to their cause those who in general believe the same as them, but aren't otherwise likely to participate in the political process. You thus just help them to mobilize more support for THEIR purposes.

We aren't some kind of general purpose political party that engages FOF on a wide range of issues and needs to spend the effort on portraying them in a negative light overall. Rather we are a special interest group that can't afford to engage in those kinds of personal and broad range attacks, lest we alienate the fence sitters and make ourselves look unreasonable. We need to FOCUS on the non-morality aspects of our opponents' arguments, which we can easily refute, and which allows us to wage the battle on a field of OUR choosing.

But if you and others just can't help yourself and feel it necessary to blowhard about the nuances of morality because of your personal distaste with and disagreement with the overall positions of FOF and their allies, then go ahead. Just realize that not only are you putting that above what is the best political strategy for engaging our opponents, but also are using a dominated strategy given their political clout relative to ours, and risking dooming our chances. And obviously I am not talking about making random posts here, but on what we should say publicly, and what we should focus our efforts on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a REALLY good post. People should read it again because it seems a lot are still falling into the trappings it warns against.

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Engineer,

I am done with this thread after this post. I hope most posters here recognize the folly of attempting to publicly make the arguments you are making, even if you and some others don't.

FOF and others have an argument against gambling that goes like this:

1) gambling is a sin
2) gambling causes X to happen that is bad for people and society at large.
3) [implied] people shouldn't be allowed to do things that harm themselves and not others.

Now instead of focusing on rebutting #2 and #3, which leaves them only with #1 which is only tenable to a minority of the population and politicians, you instead want to engage them on a battlefield of THEIR CHOOSING, i.e what is or is not the proper interpretation of the Bible and Christian morality. Which then allows them to paint you as anti-Christian/morality and be much more effective in rallying to their cause those who in general believe the same as them, but aren't otherwise likely to participate in the political process. You thus just help them to mobilize more support for THEIR purposes.

We aren't some kind of general purpose political party that engages FOF on a wide range of issues and needs to spend the effort on portraying them in a negative light overall. Rather we are a special interest group that can't afford to engage in those kinds of personal and broad range attacks, lest we alienate the fence sitters and make ourselves look unreasonable. We need to FOCUS on the non-morality aspects of our opponents' arguments, which we can easily refute, and which allows us to wage the battle on a field of OUR choosing.

But if you and others just can't help yourself and feel it necessary to blowhard about the nuances of morality because of your personal distaste with and disagreement with the overall positions of FOF and their allies, then go ahead. Just realize that not only are you putting that above what is the best political strategy for engaging our opponents, but also are using a dominated strategy given their political clout relative to ours, and risking dooming our chances. And obviously I am not talking about making random posts here, but on what we should say publicly, and what we should focus our efforts on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a REALLY good post. People should read it again because it seems a lot are still falling into the trappings it warns against.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could not agree more here. It is an absolutely terrible strategy to argue moralistic/religious points with religious zealots. When the blind are leading the blind, don't expect a stranger to open anybody's eyes.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Could not agree more here. It is an absolutely terrible strategy to argue moralistic/religious points with religious zealots. When the blind are leading the blind, don't expect a stranger to open anybody's eyes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone said we should. Rather, the only comment was that we should say "there's nothing in the Bible against gambling", and then shut up while they give their convoluted reasons against gambling. This was done at Friday's hearing, and it was a highlight of the hearing.

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think this is a REALLY good post. People should read it again because it seems a lot are still falling into the trappings it warns against.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could not agree more here. It is an absolutely terrible strategy to argue moralistic/religious points with religious zealots. When the blind are leading the blind, don't expect a stranger to open anybody's eyes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that people are actually taking this strategy, I think we're just discussing it among ourselves. Personally, I have no hope to change the minds of those people in FOF. The people that I DO talk to agree that the feds have no reason to be all up in our grill. It's our money and time.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think this is a REALLY good post. People should read it again because it seems a lot are still falling into the trappings it warns against.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could not agree more here. It is an absolutely terrible strategy to argue moralistic/religious points with religious zealots. When the blind are leading the blind, don't expect a stranger to open anybody's eyes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that people are actually taking this strategy, I think we're just discussing it among ourselves. Personally, I have no hope to change the minds of those people in FOF. The people that I DO talk to agree that the feds have no reason to be all up in our grill. It's our money and time.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

Who would do that? I have no idea why this keeps coming up. No one here said anything like that. I think it's because Bluffthis thought we were being anti-Christian when we were really being anti-FOF.

Perhaps FOF should focus on their own damn families. Maybe then their kids wouldn't rob banks. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
Please show me how it is Biblical for a Christian to get involved in political (worldly) issues. It isn't. James Dobson is a disgrace to all true Christians, with his political agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not being religious I feel like I'm intruding here especially as I am against what Dobson says most of the time but the incident with the money lenders, or the stoning of the adulteress, could be used as examples in faour of religious political activism (not that I welcome it myself mind).

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
As for Jesus making wine, he certainly was not making it for people to get drunk

[/ QUOTE ]

Well he only made it after they had already necked every drop at the wedding party, quite some achievement in itself. I strongly suspect they were all a bit rolling by the time he got around to making the good stuff.

Anyway I suspect that it will be very difficult to win over religious organisations to a liberalisation of gambling law, I doubt it is worth the effort and should not be a priority.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway I suspect that it will be very difficult to win over religious organisations to a liberalisation of gambling law, I doubt it is worth the effort and should not be a priority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree 100%. I suspect it would be IMPOSSIBLE to win over the religious right, so it's no one's goal or priority here.

At Friday's hearings, a representative said the Bible is actually pro-gambling (I think it's neutral myself, but I'll take "pro", certainly /images/graemlins/grin.gif ), and the Baptist minister/father of a bank robber nodded in agreement! That's all we're talking about. It's not about convincing the religious right; it's about convincing everyone else that the religious right have it wrong in regards to gambling.

By the way, when I say "religious right", I'm referring to a small minority of Christians who wish to legislate their ideas of morality (Bible-based and otherwise) on others. Most Christians are kind and decent people who have no desire to put you in jail for violating their personal beliefs. It's only an extreme minority of Christians, and criticizing them is not "anti-Christian", as some here have claimed.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please show me how it is Biblical for a Christian to get involved in political (worldly) issues. It isn't. James Dobson is a disgrace to all true Christians, with his political agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not being religious I feel like I'm intruding here especially as I am against what Dobson says most of the time but the incident with the money lenders, or the stoning of the adulteress, could be used as examples in faour of religious political activism (not that I welcome it myself mind).

[/ QUOTE ]
In these cases, Jesus was confronting the Jewish religious leaders. Jesus never confronted the Romans (the government) as this was not his concern -- and nor should it be the concern of any true Christian. The world is the world, and is not our concern (other than to spread the gospel in love). Evil resides in the church -- that is where evil is to be fought.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/gambling/cog/A000004244.cfm . It sounds like a mirror-image of our actions. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

The updated FOF anti-Internet gambling site mentions us poker players by name now. Perhaps our lobby (us, PPA and D'Amato, etc) is starting to be heard! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Are you tired of being assaulted by thousands of online gambling pop-up ads? [why turn on the pop-up blocker when you can simply outlaw an entire industry instead?] Are you worried about your children, a spouse or an extended family member becoming "hooked" on highly addictive Internet gambling? Barney Frank seems more concerned about a handful of <u>disgruntled</u> poker players and the special interests of foreign casino operators.

[/ QUOTE ]

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Could not agree more here. It is an absolutely terrible strategy to argue moralistic/religious points with religious zealots. When the blind are leading the blind, don't expect a stranger to open anybody's eyes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still have no idea where you got the idea that anyone is proposing any such thing. Can you quote it so we know what you're talking about? Thanks.

I was merely discussing exposing hypocrisy. Here's a reposting of my letter to Bachus to illustrate what we're talking about:

--------------------------------------------

June 13, 2007

The Honorable Spencer Bachus
2246 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Bachus:

I’m writing in response to last Friday’s House Financial Services Committee hearing on Internet gambling (June 8, 2007: Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System?). I was very impressed with quality of the hearing, especially with the witnesses who testified in favor of regulated Internet gambling. I felt the expert testimony of Michael Colopy of Aristotle Inc, Jon Prideaux of Asterion Payments, and Gerald Kitchen of SecureTrading Ltd. proved that Internet gambling can be regulated effectively (and has been successfully regulated in Britain). This pleased me, as I do share your concerns for underage gambling, compulsive gambling, and other issues. Fortunately, this is an issue we can effectively address with technology and regulation, rather than with a “feel good” unconstitutional prohibition. America is far better off with effective regulation than with a prohibition that relies on banks to snoop through our financial transactions and Internet service providers to snoop through our Internet usage history.

Further, I concurred completely with Radley Balko of Reason Magazine (and a regular Foxnews.com contributor) in that what Americans do in their own homes with their own money is their own business. As a limited-government conservative in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, I am distressed by the amount of government intrusion in our daily lives. I think many Americans feel the same way. In fact, it pains me to see our party acting as the agent of big government. I imagine you will consider the validity of Mr. Balko’s points relative to our freedoms and liberties, as I know you are a man who believes in these core American values regardless of your personal opinions concerning Internet poker.

Speaking of Mr. Balko, I was perplexed by your question to him concerning Ross Boatman and his biography on the FullTilt Poker web site. You seemed very concerned that, as a youth, Mr. Boatman played poker with his brother at the kitchen table, likely for pennies, baseball cards, or valueless chips used simply to keep score. Certainly you were not suggesting passing federal legislation to prevent brothers from playing poker at the kitchen table, were you? I certainly hope not, but one never knows, given recent Congressional history. Were you suggesting that Mr. Boatman was playing on the Internet with his brother when he was twelve? Certainly you understand no site ever permitted more than one player from the same IP address to play the same game, due to collusion. I assume you do, as you claim expertise in this area. Also, as Mr. Boatman is in his 40s, he would have been twelve back in the pre-Internet 1970s. Anyway, regardless of the point you were trying to make, fortunately for Mr. Boatman this was prior to the current era of big government Republicanism. As such, he was able to play poker for pennies at his kitchen table with his brother without federal intrusion.

As for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, you noted that it does not make any gambling illegal that was not already illegal. Rather, it provides legal mechanisms for enforcement of existing state and federal gambling laws. Well, Internet poker is not illegal under existing federal law. As for state laws, very few states have outlawed Internet poker. Conversely, the vast majority of states permit online “games of skill” (such as the money skill games on yahoo.com and other sites that are not affected by UIGEA), and I think we can agree that professional players like Doyle Brunson are certainly skilled. It seems that if states wished to ban Internet poker, it seems they would have done so in an unambiguous fashion … especially if they wished to have the federal government enforce it.

HR 2046 provides real regulation, rather than a porous prohibition. A regulated Internet gambling environment will facilitate age verification and collection of federal and state taxes. It will also reduce any potential vulnerability of gambling websites to being used for money laundering, drug trafficking, or terrorist financing. With regulation, potential problems can be controlled without taking freedoms from Americans. After all, Russians and Eastern Europeans can gamble online; it seems the U.S. should trust its citizens at least as much as Russia trusts theirs, right?

Proponents of online gambling prohibition often mention endorsements UIGEA received from some in the religious community, some family groups, some financial services groups and some professional sports organizations. I hope you’ll consider the fact that these groups do not necessarily represent the majority of voters in our nation (or even the majority of Alabama Republicans). As for religious and family groups, there is no prohibition against gambling in the Bible, as was noted at the hearing. As a Christian, I personally find it offensive that some in the religious community are willing to give away our freedoms in pursuit of a goal not even defined in the Bible. As for financial services groups, some credit card issuers may like UIGEA (due only to the risk of losing players refusing to pay up), but I do not believe banks wish to be the enforcers of UIGEA. As a result, I think you’ll find financial services groups to be net losers as a result of UIGEA. Finally, I believe the concerns of the major professional sports organizations you mentioned relate only to sports betting. As HR 2046 permits them to opt out, this concern has been addressed.

In closing, I urge you to reconsider your strong opposition to allowing Americans to make their own decisions concerning playing poker in their own homes via the Internet. Online gambling will continue to exist with or without the participation of the United States. We’re losing our opportunity to control the games via regulation as well as the opportunities for U.S. companies to operate the games both domestically and internationally. This is costing America jobs and tax revenue.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer


Cc: My Congressman (on the Financial Services Committee) and Michael Duncan, Republican National Committee Chairman

[JayEmm]

that makes my [censored] blood boil

[TheEngineer]

Bill Rinni posted a nice rebuttal to the FOF statement on his blog,at http://www.billrini.com/2007/06/08/meet-thy-enemy/ .

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
Bill Rinni posted a nice rebuttal to the FOF statement on his blog,at http://www.billrini.com/2007/06/08/meet-thy-enemy/ .

[/ QUOTE ]

Reasoned precision versus loaded language and scare tactics: Unfortunately, we all know how that battle ends in America.....

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Could not agree more here. It is an absolutely terrible strategy to argue moralistic/religious points with religious zealots. When the blind are leading the blind, don't expect a stranger to open anybody's eyes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still have no idea where you got the idea that anyone is proposing any such thing. Can you quote it so we know what you're talking about? Thanks.

I was merely discussing exposing hypocrisy. Here's a reposting of my letter to Bachus to illustrate what we're talking about:

--------------------------------------------

June 13, 2007

The Honorable Spencer Bachus
2246 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Bachus:

I’m writing in response to last Friday’s House Financial Services Committee hearing on Internet gambling (June 8, 2007: Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System?). I was very impressed with quality of the hearing, especially with the witnesses who testified in favor of regulated Internet gambling. I felt the expert testimony of Michael Colopy of Aristotle Inc, Jon Prideaux of Asterion Payments, and Gerald Kitchen of SecureTrading Ltd. proved that Internet gambling can be regulated effectively (and has been successfully regulated in Britain). This pleased me, as I do share your concerns for underage gambling, compulsive gambling, and other issues. Fortunately, this is an issue we can effectively address with technology and regulation, rather than with a “feel good” unconstitutional prohibition. America is far better off with effective regulation than with a prohibition that relies on banks to snoop through our financial transactions and Internet service providers to snoop through our Internet usage history.

Further, I concurred completely with Radley Balko of Reason Magazine (and a regular Foxnews.com contributor) in that what Americans do in their own homes with their own money is their own business. As a limited-government conservative in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, I am distressed by the amount of government intrusion in our daily lives. I think many Americans feel the same way. In fact, it pains me to see our party acting as the agent of big government. I imagine you will consider the validity of Mr. Balko’s points relative to our freedoms and liberties, as I know you are a man who believes in these core American values regardless of your personal opinions concerning Internet poker.

Speaking of Mr. Balko, I was perplexed by your question to him concerning Ross Boatman and his biography on the FullTilt Poker web site. You seemed very concerned that, as a youth, Mr. Boatman played poker with his brother at the kitchen table, likely for pennies, baseball cards, or valueless chips used simply to keep score. Certainly you were not suggesting passing federal legislation to prevent brothers from playing poker at the kitchen table, were you? I certainly hope not, but one never knows, given recent Congressional history. Were you suggesting that Mr. Boatman was playing on the Internet with his brother when he was twelve? Certainly you understand no site ever permitted more than one player from the same IP address to play the same game, due to collusion. I assume you do, as you claim expertise in this area. Also, as Mr. Boatman is in his 40s, he would have been twelve back in the pre-Internet 1970s. Anyway, regardless of the point you were trying to make, fortunately for Mr. Boatman this was prior to the current era of big government Republicanism. As such, he was able to play poker for pennies at his kitchen table with his brother without federal intrusion.

As for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, you noted that it does not make any gambling illegal that was not already illegal. Rather, it provides legal mechanisms for enforcement of existing state and federal gambling laws. Well, Internet poker is not illegal under existing federal law. As for state laws, very few states have outlawed Internet poker. Conversely, the vast majority of states permit online “games of skill” (such as the money skill games on yahoo.com and other sites that are not affected by UIGEA), and I think we can agree that professional players like Doyle Brunson are certainly skilled. It seems that if states wished to ban Internet poker, it seems they would have done so in an unambiguous fashion … especially if they wished to have the federal government enforce it.

HR 2046 provides real regulation, rather than a porous prohibition. A regulated Internet gambling environment will facilitate age verification and collection of federal and state taxes. It will also reduce any potential vulnerability of gambling websites to being used for money laundering, drug trafficking, or terrorist financing. With regulation, potential problems can be controlled without taking freedoms from Americans. After all, Russians and Eastern Europeans can gamble online; it seems the U.S. should trust its citizens at least as much as Russia trusts theirs, right?

Proponents of online gambling prohibition often mention endorsements UIGEA received from some in the religious community, some family groups, some financial services groups and some professional sports organizations. I hope you’ll consider the fact that these groups do not necessarily represent the majority of voters in our nation (or even the majority of Alabama Republicans). As for religious and family groups, there is no prohibition against gambling in the Bible, as was noted at the hearing. As a Christian, I personally find it offensive that some in the religious community are willing to give away our freedoms in pursuit of a goal not even defined in the Bible. As for financial services groups, some credit card issuers may like UIGEA (due only to the risk of losing players refusing to pay up), but I do not believe banks wish to be the enforcers of UIGEA. As a result, I think you’ll find financial services groups to be net losers as a result of UIGEA. Finally, I believe the concerns of the major professional sports organizations you mentioned relate only to sports betting. As HR 2046 permits them to opt out, this concern has been addressed.

In closing, I urge you to reconsider your strong opposition to allowing Americans to make their own decisions concerning playing poker in their own homes via the Internet. Online gambling will continue to exist with or without the participation of the United States. We’re losing our opportunity to control the games via regulation as well as the opportunities for U.S. companies to operate the games both domestically and internationally. This is costing America jobs and tax revenue.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer


Cc: My Congressman (on the Financial Services Committee) and Michael Duncan, Republican National Committee Chairman

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice letter, except for the (small) gaffe of "the pre-internet 1970's". The entire 1970's represent an explosion of the internet, which was a late 60's invention. In fact, folks were playing poker on the internet in the 1970's - although not on commercial web sites. We also played chess, go, backgammon, and a host of net-based ascii games. It was nice to see the rest of the world clue in 20 years later!

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice letter, except for the (small) gaffe of "the pre-internet 1970's". The entire 1970's represent an explosion of the internet, which was a late 60's invention. In fact, folks were playing poker on the internet in the 1970's - although not on commercial web sites. We also played chess, go, backgammon, and a host of net-based ascii games. It was nice to see the rest of the world clue in 20 years later!

[/ QUOTE ]

Hehe. Good one.

Actually, in fairness, it's only a gaffe if you played a raked money game online in the 1970s. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[TheEngineer]

From Wikipedia:

[ QUOTE ]
In November 2004, Dobson was described by the online magazine Slate.com as "America's most influential evangelical leader." The article explained "Forget Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who in their dotage have marginalized themselves with gaffes... Dobson is now America's most influential evangelical leader, with a following reportedly greater than that of either Falwell or Robertson at his peak... Dobson may have delivered Bush his victories in Ohio and Florida. Further, "He's already leveraging his new power. When a thank-you call came from the White House, Dobson issued the staffer a blunt warning that Bush 'needs to be more aggressive' about pressing the religious right's pro-life, anti-gay rights agenda, or it would 'pay a price in four years.'... Dobson has sometimes complained that the Republican party may take the votes of social conservatives for granted, and has suggested that evangelicals may withhold support from the GOP if the party does not more strongly support conservative family issues: "Does the Republican Party want our votes, no string attached--to court us every two years, and then to say, 'Don't call me, I'll call you'--and not to care about the moral law of the universe? ... Is that what they want? Is that the way the system works? Is this the way it's going to be? If it is, I'm gone, and if I go, I will do everything I can to take as many people with me as possible."

[/ QUOTE ]

From this, it sounds like we were sold down the river to appease the social conservatives. Nothing we didn't already know, of course. I guess Bush and the Republican Congressional leaders thought we were free targets. Nothing to lose and everything to gain. They were mistaken. Ask Leach how his Congressional career is going. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif