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

[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 ]