[TheEngineer]

Repost of my FoF dialog (as a reminder):

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

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 providing this treatment and to airing public service announcements warning of your concerns, so that Americans could 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>
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, xxxx, 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