Dialogue with FotF

[blutarski]

I've exchanged e-mails with a rep of Focus on the Family about poker and gambling. Not being a bright man, I didn't think to post the first two messages, so I'll summarize:

I sent FotF an e-mail asking them, in polite terms, why I should have to adhere to the morals of their faith regarding gambling.

Mr. Masters wrote back saying, in effect, that I have free will and the right to do as I please, just as FotF has the right to try to outlaw things that they believe are wrong.

I responded, pointing out the logical problem he had. He could either agree that I have the right to free will (in this case, regarding gambling) or he could try to outlaw gambling. He couldn't have both. I asked him bluntly whether he thought I have the right to decide whether to gamble or not. This was his response:

Dear Chris,

Thanks for responding to my e-mail of July 11. Perhaps I should rephrase my message or offer some further clarification of what I meant to communicate. When I said that you are “entitled” to “live by what you believe,” I was only trying to express the idea that every man and woman is endowed with freedom of choice. What you do with that freedom is up to you. But that doesn’t obligate us to endorse or condone your every decision. When it comes to gambling, we have strong reasons to believe that you are making a serious mistake. If we care about you – and about others who have fallen prey to the same error – it is incumbent upon us to do what we can to put a stop to your misguided actions. In other words, we are free to advocate for any legislation we please in our efforts to protect our fellow citizens and promote the welfare of the family.

Thanks again for writing back, Chris. I trust this reply has made our position sufficiently clear.

Timothy Masters
Focus on the Family

And my response to him:

Dear Timothy,

I agree you have the right to push for any legislation you choose. That is one of the reasons why our country is a great one. I would also agree that you're under no obligation to endorse any decision I make. In fact, I would prefer that you would not opine on my decisions at all.

However, I disagree that you have the right to 'save' me from something that you believe is a mistake. I am neither a member of your church, an adherent to your religion, or a member of your neighborhood. By what authority do you believe that you can try to limit my behavior in an activity that is not criminal? Poker in and of itself is not a violent crime, or a crime against property or person.

This is a sentiment that sounds very much like liberal philosophy and the 'nanny state.'

To be blunt, it scares me when a religious group wants to decide morality for people outside of its congregation.

Chris

[VayaConDios]

Thinking that these retards care what anyone else thinks or could possibly be swayed by rational argument is how we got in this predicament in the first place. You may as well engage a monkey in a dialog about why it likes to fling poo.

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
Thinking that these retards care what anyone else thinks or could possibly be swayed by rational argument is how we got in this predicament in the first place. You may as well engage a monkey in a dialog about why it likes to fling poo.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I think. Why even bother? They obviously don't care. It's not like you can reason with them - they "have faith in Jay-sus!"

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
Thinking that these retards care what anyone else thinks or could possibly be swayed by rational argument is how we got in this predicament in the first place. You may as well engage a monkey in a dialog about why it likes to fling poo.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think the fotf guy actually comes off pretty well.

[oldbookguy]

One on One dialogue is usless with a fanatical group.

However, collectively, they can be exposed and marginalized.

I would suggest going to Capitol hill News, joining and sharing to the 'outside' world (non poker) the silly comments made by FoF in the comments section of a video they have uploaded there.

It only take 2 minutes to join.

OK, they have a video at Capitol Hill Broadcasting:
http://www.chbn.com/clip.aspx?key=124BDA9AA5668035

Right next to it is a GOOD Ron Paul Video.

I joined just so I could leave a comment and am making the follow-up call in the morning:
202-456-1111
Though NOT what FRC / FoF wants me to say of course.

I suggest you / we take a minute, join Capitol Hill and denounce this video!

obg

[Grasshopp3r]

You need to reply that they can either keep their separation as a religous entity from the state or renounce their special tax exemptions, but not have both.

[blutarski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thinking that these retards care what anyone else thinks or could possibly be swayed by rational argument is how we got in this predicament in the first place. You may as well engage a monkey in a dialog about why it likes to fling poo.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think the fotf guy actually comes off pretty well.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't worry you that this guy thinks he has a right to stop me every time he thinks I make a mistake?

What if I wanted to blow my money on electronics instead of poker? That could be just as irresponsible- would he have a right to stop me from doing so?

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
What if I wanted to blow my money on electronics instead of poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or expensive dinners. Or crystal cathedrals. Or a one year's supply of crystal meth. Those are all okay, I guess. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Skallagrim]

Reason with these guys? Ha!

Consider the position they have so clearly articulated: we already know whats best for you (god has revealed this to us, so dont try to argue otherwise) and we believe that its OK for us make you act in accord with our "revealed knowledge" at the threat of arrest and/or incarceration so long as we achieve this through the political process.

These people are theocrats, pure and simple. They belong in Iran, not the U.S. of A. Their only saving grace (so-far) is that their movement is non-violent. Otherwise the only difference between them and the Taliban is the name of their god (and some minor differences in what they find "dangerous").

Skallagrim

[oldbookguy]

Telling THEM does no good, it must be done in a public forum outside the poker world.

I encourage everyone to do this.....

obg

[Legislurker]

Any Catholics know their church's position on poker or gambling in general?

[tsearcher]

[ QUOTE ]
Any Catholics know their church's position on poker or gambling in general?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not Catholic but they must not have a problem with it. Besides the traditional Bingo and raffles, the Catholic Churches and schools around here often have Vegas Nights and poker tournaments.

[TreyWilly]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any Catholics know their church's position on poker or gambling in general?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not Catholic but they must not have a problem with it. Besides the traditional Bingo and raffles, the Catholic Churches and schools around here often have Vegas Nights and poker tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

We can drink, too!

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Reason with these guys? Ha!

Consider the position they have so clearly articulated: we already know whats best for you (god has revealed this to us, so dont try to argue otherwise) and we believe that its OK for us make you act in accord with our "revealed knowledge" at the threat of arrest and/or incarceration so long as we achieve this through the political process.

These people are theocrats, pure and simple. They belong in Iran, not the U.S. of A. Their only saving grace (so-far) is that their movement is non-violent. Otherwise the only difference between them and the Taliban is the name of their god (and some minor differences in what they find "dangerous").

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. I sent them one letter to let them know that many are not on their side. There's no reason to try to change their mind on gambling, but there's hope they'll slow down their very public efforts if they think they have something to lose.

OTOH, if we decide to push to place horseracing under UIGEA, they may come in handy.

[oldbookguy]

I am not Catholic but I can tell you here in my town in WV they are very supportive of raffles / 50-50 drawings for cash, members support 'elimination' dinners where you pay 35.00 for a baked steak meal and they draw to eliminate diners. The last standing wins 50% of the dinner profit.

Could be why several years ago my county voted by 62.5% to allow a casino, though the state property is just next month being auctioned off and a casino developer is very interested!

BTW, it is generally accepted here in town to win any election you have to have the catholic support, and we passed gambling here.

But, then again even the nutty Jehovah's Wittness supported the gambling referendum......odd for a group that supposedly does not vote.

obg

[Lottery Larry]

Nice, Don Quixote...

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thinking that these retards care what anyone else thinks or could possibly be swayed by rational argument is how we got in this predicament in the first place. You may as well engage a monkey in a dialog about why it likes to fling poo.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think the fotf guy actually comes off pretty well.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't worry you that this guy thinks he has a right to stop me every time he thinks I make a mistake?

What if I wanted to blow my money on electronics instead of poker? That could be just as irresponsible- would he have a right to stop me from doing so?

[/ QUOTE ]

no i obviously don't think he has a right to stop you from making a mistake. (i do think he has a right to petition our gov't to get them to stop you though).

i'm definitely not saying i agree with him, just that he comes across as less of a lunatic than i would have expected.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

i do think he has a right to petition our gov't to get them to stop you though

I guess people the right to petition the government to do anything you want, but at some point the constitution needs to kick in and tell the government to ignore things they have no business regulating.

Just because even a majority of citizens want something restricted by law doesn't mean the government has the right to make that law. This simple point is the main difference between a Constitutional Republic (which is what the US is) and a pure Democracy (which the US is not).

[Skallagrim]

Thank you, son of Mogh, for spotting the key point. The US constitution was in fact specifically designed to prevent the kind of majoritarian totalitarianism that is embodied by FOF.

In a pure democracy 51% of the people can vote to have the other 49% killed. An extreme example, but it illustrates the point.

Certain things I do are no business of the government's whatsoever. These rights are embodied in the Bill of Rights, which no simple minded majority can (legally) take away.

Is poker playing mentioned in the Bill of Rights? No, but before we give the point away, lets recall the (all too frequently forgotten) 9th Amendment to the Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." What games I play in the privacy of my home, even for money, should not be within the government's power to ban (regulation of the monetary aspect of the game is different). This should not be debated as a matter of morality or even practicality, it should be understood as a principle of ordered liberty.

FOF believes that as long as they have the votes, no aspect of what I do or think in private is beyond their reach, and that it is fine to punish me for acting differently from their beliefs. This is absolutely opposite of the principles on which this country was founded and grew to greatness. FOF are the ones who will destroy this great country if they succeed, not the gays or the pornographers or the drug users or the gamblers.

Skallagrim

[crashjr]

[ QUOTE ]
Certain things I do are no business of the government's whatsoever. These rights are embodied in the Bill of Rights, which no simple minded majority can (legally) take away.

Is poker playing mentioned in the Bill of Rights? No, but before we give the point away, lets recall the (all too frequently forgotten) 9th Amendment to the Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." What games I play in the privacy of my home, even for money, should not be within the government's power to ban (regulation of the monetary aspect of the game is different). This should not be debated as a matter of morality or even practicality, it should be understood as a principle of ordered liberty.


[/ QUOTE ]

The 9th Amendment is tautological. Relying on the 9th Amendment to support an argument will not persuade anyone schooled in rhetoric and the law. I really don't see a federal constitutional argument to support a right of the citizens to play poker. I mainly lurk here, and I normally enjoy your posts and insight, but this one just doesn't hold up.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
lets recall the (all too frequently forgotten) 9th Amendment to the Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point. But do not forget when quoting Amendment IX, to follow up with Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people

Thus the reality that regulating gambling is not the job of the federal government, but is reserved to the several States.

[Skallagrim]

crashjr you are right about the 9th amendment having become useless in the courts. But just because it is that way doesnt mean it should be that way.

Skallagrim

[TheEngineer]

Since FoF is individually replying to each and every inquiry from us, perhaps we should send them some mail to keep them busy and to demonstrate our resolve. I wouldn't take time from our other work to do this, but it can't hurt.

In this spirit, I decided to reply to their response to my initial inquiry:

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

Dear Amy and Focus on the Family,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply to my inquiry on your stand concerning Internet poker. I read it with much interest and felt compelled to reply. I honestly don’t feel your advocacy of a total ban on Internet poker is in the best interests of your organization, and I’d like to share my thoughts with you on this.

Your organization thrives under freedom. The power you wish to give the federal government over our lives is the power the government will one day use against all Christians, including Focus. As I mentioned in my initial letter, you’ve essentially told the federal government that Americans cannot be trusted to make their own decisions, so I hope you won’t be surprised when preachers are prohibited from speaking against homosexuality and other issues (at risk of losing at least their tax exempt status). As you know, many feel discrimination is a moral issue as well. Many also feel the same way about gun possession, and I’m certainly not willing to initiate any process by which I end up surrendering my Second Amendment rights simply to keep people from choosing to play poker. Many of my fellow conservative Republicans feel this way, and we’ll vote for our freedoms. How will Focus fare under the Democratic majority you’re helping to create?

You mentioned that all laws are based on morality. I respectfully beg to differ. Theft may be immoral, but laws against it are based on property rights. Laws against murder are based on the right of the victim to life. Many pro-life people, me included, are pro-life not because of morality, but because we believe the unborn child has a right to life just as a “born” individual does. Even if you do believe freedom should be curtailed in the name of morality, you have not made the case that poker is immoral. Gambling is not prohibited anywhere in the Bible. In fact, your tortured “proof” that poker is a sin really only proves that your organization simply doesn’t like poker. Perhaps it doesn’t “seem” Christian to some. Sorry, but most of us believe God gave us His marching orders in the Bible and that we shouldn’t be in the business of inventing new sins. Does Focus feel the work God actually asked of us is done, such that you all feel compelled to figure out what’s next? If not, how much time and money is Focus taking from God’s work to work on curtailing freedom in America, and how much is too much? After all, you know my fellow poker players will be fighting hard for our freedom. Your ill conceived fight for big government will consume a lot of cash and political capital. Is it worth it?

Your citing of the experiences of Atlantic City, NJ was telling. First of all, it seems disingenuous that you chose the example with the most manipulable statistics to cite as average. The use of per capita stats appears disingenuous, as Atlantic City has many more tourists now than it had pre-gambling. As such, the city’s average daily population (which includes these many money-spending tourists) of Atlantic City is now much higher than the city’s resident population (which is used for per capita statistics). Were you trying to imply that crime rate increases were caused by former law-abiding citizens who were drawn to crime by gambling addictions? I hope not, as the reality is that crime went up simply as a result of increased economic activity, growth, and increased tourism; in fact, many believe any economic stimulus would have caused a similar outcome. And, the reality is that Atlantic City is far better off today than it was the day before gambling was legalized. Finally, this whole argument is better suited for “bricks and mortar” casinos and related zoning issues. As Internet poker does not cause any of the issues you attempted to show with the example of Atlantic City, it seems odd to cite this case as justification for an Internet poker ban.

Also, not all Internet gambling has been banned. Many Republicans schemed behind the scenes to allow Internet wagering on horseracing to continue. Why no Alert Warnings about this? Is Chad Hills okay with horse betting? Or, could it be that you all oppose all gambling…just some more than others? I imagine it’s hard to oppose your friends in Congress. It does seem hypocritical, though. After all, Internet horse betting is no less susceptible to the issues you cited than Internet poker. You can be sure the proponents of Internet poker will ask you why you support Internet horseracing wagering (at least implicitly by not opposing it with the same vigor as you do poker). What will you say? Will you stand for your friends, or will you stand for your principles?

Finally, I think your organization fails to understand the realities of poker. Poker is a game of skill that we play because we enjoy the challenges of the game. I think you feel everyone who plays is some kind of addicted gambler. I assure you nothing could be further from the truth. A recent Harvard study concluded that only 0.4% of gamblers develop addictions. Why deprive the other 99.6% of their liberties when you could be at the forefront of helping those who actually need it? After all, they’ll find a bet somewhere. HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, funds treatment for compulsive gamblers while regulating the industry for fairness, age verification, and other issues. Wouldn’t your organization be better suited to provide this treatment and to air public service announcements warning of your concerns, so that Americans can make their own choices? I think you would.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Kind regards,

xxxxxxxxx



----- Original Message ----
From: Focus on the Family <family@custhelp.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 8:35:11 AM
Subject: Gambling [Incident: 070704-000293]

Recently you requested personal assistance from our on-line support center. Below is a summary of your request and our response.

Thank you for allowing us to be of service to you.


Subject
Gambling

Discussion Thread
Response (Amy Campbell) 07/11/2007 09:35 AM
Thank you, Steve, for contacting Focus on the Family.

We appreciate the time you took to offer your personal insights on the controversial issue of gambling. In response, what some people don't realize is that the pragmatic downside to gambling, including poker, is serious. The hard facts indicate that legalized gambling is responsible for a host of social ills (a suggestion that can be validated by looking at virtually any area where gambling has been introduced on a widespread basis). Take Atlantic City, for example, where from 1976 to 1992 the community’s police budget tripled to $24 million while the local population decreased by 20 percent. And despite spending $59 million yearly to monitor casinos, during the first three years of casino operation Atlantic City jumped from 50th to 1st on the nation’s per capita crime chart! Even more disturbing is the astronomical price tag associated with the costs of “cleaning up the mess” left in gambling’s wake. John Kindt, Ph.D., professor of commerce and legal policy at the University of Illinois, asserts that for every one dollar of revenue generated by gambling, taxpayers must dish out at least three dollars in increased criminal justice costs, social-welfare expenses, high regulatory costs, and increased infrastructure expenditures.

In addition, gambling can quite literally have a devastating effect on individuals. Millions of Americans now have a compulsive gambling problem, which not only causes great personal financial hardship for the gambler, but also disrupts and, in some cases, destroys families. Countless studies show a direct link between legalized gambling and gambling addictions, as well as drug and alcohol abuse and suicide.

On another note, if it be contended that Dr. Dobson wants to “legislate morality,” or that we are attempting to force individuals to conform to our idea of what constitutes godly behavior, we respond that nothing could be further from the truth. But Dr. Dobson believes that a nation which recognizes no transcendent standard of accountability is headed for moral bankruptcy and social chaos. All laws place restraints upon human behavior by declaring one act socially acceptable and another unacceptable. To that extent laws are statements about morality. We can’t avoid “legislating morality,” then. The question is, whose morality will be legislated? To what standard do we appeal in seeking a rationale for our laws? As Chuck Colson writes in his book, _Kingdoms in Conflict_, “Without transcendent norms, laws are either established by the social elites or are merely bargains struck by competing forces in society ... laws rooted in moral absolutes do not vacillate with public taste or the whim of fashion.”

Again, thanks for writing. We hope this response has clarified our perspective. God bless you.

xxxxxxxxxxxx
Focus on the Family
Auto-Response 07/08/2007 08:07 PM
Recently you submitted a question or comment to Focus on the Family. Please know that we are currently experiencing higher than expected volumes of e-mail. Should your situation require a response, we ask that you please allow a few additional days for handling. We appreciate your patience.


Customer 07/04/2007 08:05 PM
I’m writing to let you know many Americans find your organization’s outspoken (and often inaccurate to the point of being deceitful) advocacy of banning Internet poker offensive, particularly FoF’s assertion that the American people need the federal government to act as their nanny. Americans are capable of making their own decisions. We don’t need a bigger federal government to do that for us. Actually, we need a smaller one. After all, the power you give government today is the power they’ll use against us tomorrow.

For example, do you feel safe in saying the IRS could never revoke a church's tax exempt status for refusing to hire a gay pastor? Do you feel safe in saying the IRS could never revoke a church's tax exempt status for preaching that homosexuality is a sin? If you answered "yes, that cannot happen", are you certain that couldn't come to pass within ten years? And, why shouldn't it? YOU decided government should involve itself in issues of morality, and many Americans do think discrimination against gays is immoral. That's the power you're advocating giving government today!!! After all, YOU said the American people are incapable of making their own decisions. YOU said government should have a role. And, YOU condemned yourself to this outcome by chasing limited-government conservatives like me from the Republican Party, assuring the party of minority status.

I urge you to let this one go. Support limited government. Support regulation over prohibition. Fiscal conservatism plus government out of your life = true conservatism. Government control of one’s life = statism.

Sincerely,

xxxxxxxxxx
Auto-Response 07/04/2007 08:05 PM
Focus on the Family

[TheEngineer]

I read this after sending my reply. Turns out FoF actually is concerned about Hate Crimes legislation, per www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000004525.cfm (http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000004525.cfm) :

Dr. Dobson Asks the Nation to Oppose Hate-Crimes Bill
by Wendy Cloyd, assistant editor

Says legislation could “pave the way for religious persecution” in the U.S.

The U.S. House is set to vote this week on controversial hate-crimes legislation that purports to give extra legal protection to people with gender-identity confusion, but that would ultimately strip away religious freedoms.

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act – H.R. 1592 in the House and S. 1105 in the Senate – would mandate additional federal penalties for crimes involving sexual orientation or gender identity.

Dr. James C. Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family Action, said the backers of the bill are hoping people won't catch on that "the true intent of the legislation is not to punish what is already illegal. It is to muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality."

He alerted Focus on the Family broadcast listeners to the subterfuge on Tuesday.

“There’s a vote coming up on some insidious legislation in the United States Congress that could silence and punish Christians for their moral beliefs,” he said. “That means that as a Christian – if you read the Bible a certain way with regard to morality – you may be guilty of committing a ‘thought crime.’ ”

Dr. Dobson added that the true nature of the bill was exposed when Republicans proposed an amendment aimed at protecting religious freedom as laid out in the U.S. Constitution.

"Guess what? Every Democrat voted against it, and the measure failed," he said. "What is at stake here is freedom of speech and the expression of conscience, and without a huge outcry from the public expressed to the House, Senate and the White House, it will become law."

Similar laws in Canada and Europe have already led to fines and prosecution for simply expressing a biblical view, he noted.

Tom Minnery, senior vice president of government and public policy at Focus on the Family Action said conservatives have been able to quash hate-crimes legislation before, but not now.

“The liberals are in charge of Congress, and these bills are likely to pass," he said. "This has a great impact on the advancement of the Christian message."

Minnery contrasted the hate-crimes measure with the shooting last month at Virginia Tech.

“The man who murdered 32 people said in his diatribe he was angry at ‘rich kids.’ And that is not a hate crime under the language of this law,” he said. “Had he killed transgender people -- that would have brought the federal government into it as a violation of the hate-crime law.”

Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, a ministry to people who are unhappy with their same-sex attraction, said he and the people he counsels illustrate the inequity.

“This legislation says that we -- as former homosexuals -- are of less value and worth less legal protection now,” he said, “than when we were living as homosexuals.

“We call upon Congress to support the prosecution of criminals to the full extent of the law, regardless of their victim’s behavior,” he added, “rather than advocating unjust legislation that threatens the religious freedoms of all Americans.”

Dr. Dobson called the so-called hate-crimes bill another outrageous attempt to silence opposition to the political agenda of homosexual activists.

"Including gay adoption, the redefinition of marriage, homosexual propaganda in the schools and more," he said. "Pastors may not even be able to speak in opposition to homosexual behavior, and, by extension, heterosexual promiscuity, as prohibited in Scripture. Please help us stop hate-crimes legislation dead in its tracks."

[Skallagrim]

DAMN YOU WRITE GOOD LETTERS! WTG ENGINEER.

PS: now in the US of A as I believe it should be, individual rights would win in both situations. But despite your eloquence, I doubt that FotF will ever realize that majoritarian imposition of "morality" is a 2 edged sword. As I used to ask people in the abortion debate: if you believe that the Government has legitimate authority to ban abortions, then doesnt it also have the legitimate authority to force abortions (as in China)? The best solution, of course, is to keep the government out of such situations.
Let FOF preach all it wants, just stop asking for criminal laws to back up what they believe is best for people.

Skallagrim

[Legislurker]

FoF's main cause is gay marriage, or rather the fight against it. That's what pushed Dobson into politics. It gets their voters to the polls, and it got Bush re-elected in 04. Im wondering if we could find some sort of strategic alliance with homosexual advocacy. Both of us have a root problem in the federal government trying to legislate personal, in-home behavior by fascists misquoting Bibles they don't read before consorting with their whore of the week. Sort of agree to help with people writing/calling before legislation. Cross-donate some money(though that gets close to violating camp fin laws) or something similar.

[bossplayer]

Engineer, excellent letters! I only have one idea to add to the mix if u deem it worthy. All of the legislation that would be drafted against gambling has CRIMINAL penalties.

A person playing poker or any other game could easily be placed at the same level as an identity thief or waaaay worse, maybe even a child molester !!! (insert altar boy joker here)

I find that outrageous personally.

Actually, with further thought, I severely doubt an individually standing card-room of any sort would increase crime like a regular casino.

[blutarski]

Dobson is shrewd. He made it seem like the hate crimes bill was overtly aimed at pastors preaching from the public, yet never mentioned any actual language from the bill itself that supported his fears.

[Wongboy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thinking that these retards care what anyone else thinks or could possibly be swayed by rational argument is how we got in this predicament in the first place. You may as well engage a monkey in a dialog about why it likes to fling poo.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think the fotf guy actually comes off pretty well.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't worry you that this guy thinks he has a right to stop me every time he thinks I make a mistake?

What if I wanted to blow my money on electronics instead of poker? That could be just as irresponsible- would he have a right to stop me from doing so?

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I disagree with FotF in that I do not believe that people have the right to tell others how they should live their lives (unless they are harming an innocent person in some way). You might think that FotF would be a bit concerned about religious persecution, but apparently, they are good with that since they support the right of the majority to tell the minority what it should do. I wonder if they might change their mind once they realize that the majority of Americans are not very religious.

For example, I feel strongly that people should not blindly follow the teachings of an organized religion. Blind faith is a mistake in my opinion. It is good to know that FotF supports my right to lobby for an outright ban on all organized religion. Maybe the PPA could support me in this effort. After all, the best defense is a good offense.

[Legislurker]

The thing with Fof is that its days are numbered. They don't recruit well for precisely that reason. They aim their efforts at mobilizing what brainwashed minions they have. I honestly thing they believe they have most people on their side. They are distanced from reality, but nothing is binding a majority against them. Blame the Democratic Party, I do. They patently scare religious people away from the party, leaving them no refuge but FoF endorsed Republicans. It doesn't take a majority to rule or change, witness how the Weimar was brought down. We just need a Seantor or two with some cahones to stand up and denoucne these people for the illogical, lying, scheming fraudsters they are.

[oldbookguy]

True, but then by denouncing them the senator would be playing right into their hands.

We on the other hand, should be actively fighting them.

obg

[Legislurker]

What I am suggesting is not treating them wiht kid gloves. Remember the last hearing Frank had, the sick deference given to their letters and false statements. I just wish someone would say , hey, thats from FoF, the guys who lie and make the Bible up from election to election, this is the US Congress, we don't care what these people say until they deal in truth, don't add it to the record. Long shot I know, but a boy can dream.

[The Bandit Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
I read this after sending my reply. Turns out FoF actually is concerned about Hate Crimes legislation, per www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000004525.cfm (http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000004525.cfm)

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh this whole anti-gay in the name of Jesus thing cracks me up.

While I'm not Christian and don't believe in any sort of higher power, the message that Jesus is supposed to have preached is a very strong and very positive one.

So many of these "Christians" (and I don't feel that these people are actually Christians at all) seem to miss the message that Jesus was preaching. What ever happened to love thy neighbor? If Jesus were walking the Earth today he wouldn't care one bit if a person was straight or gay. It's such a silly notion that the person who preached that second to loving God was loving your fellow human beings would hate someone because they were into people of the same sex. He didn't place stipulations in there.

It amuses me that internet poker/gambling is the evil, but not B&M /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Oh well. The real Christians know who they are and they're not the ones screaming for government stop this or that because it's "immoral". They're the ones who see a person that actually has a problem and tries to help that person with their problem.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
It amuses me that internet poker/gambling is the evil, but not B&M

[/ QUOTE ]

they would ban it if they could.