Religious underpinnings of online gaming bill (long).

[Jeff Oneye]

Greetings,

Like most of you, I find it highly unfortunate and upsetting that our government succeeded at further repressing our personal freedoms. However, it was probably inevitable and is the natural result of our current political climate.

In recent years, Christian conservative voters have realized unprecedented political power. To their credit, they have played a critical role in the Republican Revolution, which has culminated with the re-election of a "spirit-filled, born again, evangelical Christian."

At all levels of government, the Republican Party has assumed majority status. Their policital success since 1994 has been substantial. In my opinion, it's unfortunate today's conservatives bear little resemblance to traditional conservatives like Barry Goldwater who fought for less regulation, lower taxation, and state's rights.

Today's conservatives are known as "neocons" and they, like their liberal democratic adversaries, believe in using proactive federal government to achieve a wide array of social, economic, cultural and military goals. Unlike their predecessors they don't strongly question the legitimacy of government spending funds on things like new federal health programs (e.g. Medicare Part D) or federal initiatives to prevent Aids. What seperates them from their primary competitors (liberal democrats) is not an argument about the legitimacy of pro-active government. Rather, the dispute is over which party has the better philosophy of activist government.

Today's conservative republicans believe government ought to play an imperative role in strengthening the moral fiber of society. They believe the basic building block of society is the traditional family (dad, mom, brother, sister) and the glue that binds strong family together is conservative Christianity.

These neo-cons do not hesitate to use government force in their quest to nurture healthy Christian families. They believe in using government censors to free us from vulgarity, police power to repress internet gambling or pornography, tax revenue for "Bible-based" addiction programs (e.g. Teen Challenge), federal abstinence programs, and a host or other programs or policies aimed at a restoration of Christian family values.

They sincerely believe they are enabling families and individuals to experience MORE FREEDOM. For example, they would argue the internet gambling prohibition will undermine easy access to the life controlling addiction of gambling. This will help free the person held in bondage to this sin. As a result, Joe Gambler will experience a newfound freedom (the absense of enslavement to gambling sin). Family values is bolstered as dad is no longer online playing Texas Holdem but has time to lead the family in Bible study or whatever.

Of course, liberals aren't exactly immune from using heavy-handed goverment to achieve their aims. They routinely erode our economic freedoms by supporting a welfare state and higher taxes to support it. Furthermore, they have trampled freedoms in the name of political correctness. There are myriad other examples where they have undermined personal liberty and freedoms (such as banning smoking indoors at private businesses or "hate crimes" laws).

In conclusion, it sometimes puzzles me that people cling to this notion that conservative republicans are for 'less government.' Traditional conservativism has largely been replaced with a new brand of conservativism known as 'neo-conservatism,' which tends to be heavily influenced by evangelicalism. They believe it's proper for government policy makers to construct laws and policies which advance conservative Christian values. In fact, they believe attacking those who peddle vice results in MORE freedom. By legislating traditional values, government clarifies and mandates official moral standards. As a consequence, time-tested biblical values are upheld and freedom-destroying sin is inhibited.

As a self-described civil libertarian I'm alarmed by the recent flurry of activity aimed at undermining my personal freedoms. I believe my body is mine and I ought to be free to do it what I please provided I don't use force or coercion against others (the old libertarian slogan). I find it ironic that many self-described republicans claim the GOP is the "Party of Lincoln." In closing, consider what Honest Abe had to say about prohibition.

"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."

[Mendacious]

<applause>

I feel the exact same way and I am disgusted by the fact that everything you said is true. I think this is a view held by many many Americans, so why can't this view break the political stranglehold that both parties have with their activist agendas. What is it going to take?

[TomVeil]

Very well thought out post. It baffles me that the GOP can stand up for "morals" while starting wars, torturing, buying off the media, selling out to lobbyists, and having cyber-sex with underaged pages.

I mean, just because you say something doesn't make it true....and yet these people continue to believe it. It's like I said during the election: "You don't need facts if you have faith." The GOP uses that faith to get the votes, and then promptly ignores them until it's time for another election.

[sarsen]

Tom,

Unfortunately there's a disconnect between both party's leaders and the average citizens who vote for them.

The christian base (as I think the NYT reported yesterday) does not see the Foley scandal as anything but Foley's problems. They don't believe in collective guilt and never have. The fact that he's been ejected from the GOP seems to be good enough for the fundamentalist base. The Dems have had their congressional sex scandals too, but then they never have claimed to be the party of 'morals'.

Both parties have their set of 'facts' and generally they do not overlap. To top it off the natural tendency of people is to ignore or discount facts that they disagree with or that do not fit their world view. Extremists on both sides are guilty of this.

The paleo-cons are not the base of the GOP pyramid and few are in positions of influence up at the top anymore. The base is made up as fundamentalist Christians (since my wife, a dem and a ELCA lutheran objects to calling them evangelicals) and the leaders have to pander to that group.

I play poker. Up until the last couple of years I was a republican. I prefer being a libertarian with a conservative streak now.

just my 2c.

[zipppy]

[ QUOTE ]

The christian base (as I think the NYT reported yesterday) does not see the Foley scandal as anything but Foley's problems. They don't believe in collective guilt and never have. The fact that he's been ejected from the GOP seems to be good enough for the fundamentalist base. The Dems have had their congressional sex scandals too, but then they never have claimed to be the party of 'morals'.


[/ QUOTE ]

are you trying to imply that Foley's Scandals ARE a problem with the GOP? Traditionally I've been conservative, but I certainly don't want to have sex with teenage boys just because Foley does.

Are you also implying that it's okay for Dems to do whatever they want because they aren't a party of 'morals'? I can appreciate that the GOP would be more hypocritical that Dems concerning certain scandals, but some scandals (foley, for example) are wrong no matter what your partys' 'morals' are.


All I ask is that agnostics/atheists on this board not generalize too much when it comes to Christians. There are a lot of us that don't fit the 'mold' that the media wants you to believe about religion. I often feel unfairly attacked (I'm NOT referring to this thread) on 2+2 by people who are just as judgemental as the groups they are criticizing.

thanks all,
zip

[sarsen]

[ QUOTE ]
are you trying to imply that Foley's Scandals ARE a problem with the GOP? Traditionally I've been conservative, but I certainly don't want to have sex with teenage boys just because Foley does.

[/ QUOTE ]

nope. I'm saying that the NYT reported that the Christian base sees Foley's immorality as evidence of his problems/sins, not as a broader brush of the GOP's problems.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you also implying that it's okay for Dems to do whatever they want because they aren't a party of 'morals'? I can appreciate that the GOP would be more hypocritical that Dems concerning certain scandals, but some scandals (foley, for example) are wrong no matter what your partys' 'morals' are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree Foley's actions are wrong no matter what. I'm implying that there are differing reactions in certain cases. Say Mel Reynolds in the 90's, or Gerry Studds. Studds had a relationship with a 17 y.o. capitol page in '83 and all he got was a censure and then reelected.

That's all.

EDIT: by no means am I saying Studds (or Foley's) actions are anything other than abhorrent.

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]

are you trying to imply that Foley's Scandals ARE a problem with the GOP? Traditionally I've been conservative, but I certainly don't want to have sex with teenage boys just because Foley does.

Are you also implying that it's okay for Dems to do whatever they want because they aren't a party of 'morals'? I can appreciate that the GOP would be more hypocritical that Dems concerning certain scandals, but some scandals (foley, for example) are wrong no matter what your partys' 'morals' are.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that the Foley incident are indictative of the GOP, but the GOP covering it up (For it seems 6 years now), is. The lesson is: morals are ok for you, but for our own, it's strictly a cover-up. And that message comes at a much higher price from them, because they DO want to control the moral discussion in this country.

Now to me the wars, the torturing, and the rest of the crap that the GOP has done resonates more with me. But I'm in the "live and let live" camp, and don't agree with a lot of their moral "lessons" anyway. Life is your own to live as long as you don't hurt anybody while you're doing it. So for them to preach one thing during elections, and then turn their back on it after it's over....yeah I think that's a GOP problem.

[JoseGonzlez]

The big advanatage for the Republican party is no matter what the Republicans do the religious voters will vote for them. In the minds of alot of these voters abortion is such as issue that even if they hated every other policy of the party they still would vote Republican. Im not necesarily criticizing their way of thinking but it just shows what the Dems or a third party would be up against.

[Jeff Oneye]

[ QUOTE ]
<applause>

I feel the exact same way and I am disgusted by the fact that everything you said is true. I think this is a view held by many many Americans, so why can't this view break the political stranglehold that both parties have with their activist agendas. What is it going to take?

[/ QUOTE ]


Given our "winner take all" system of electing policy-makers, I imagine it very unlikely that a serious third party contender will emerge, at least on the national level. If we had proportional representation like many European countries I think we'd be better off in some ways. For one thing, smaller parties would at least have some representation in government. People might feel less powerless if they at least had some real political representation by alternative parties more closely representing their vantage points.

The "winner take all" system of plurality effectively undermines this by ensuring politicians will generally take non-controversial and predictable courses of action. Also, the majority requirement serves to perpetuate the two major parties as voting for minor party candidates is a 'wasted vote.'

I sometimes wonder how a goverment of coalitions would work in America. Would political participation increase? Would old partisan allegiances to the two major parties wither away? Would attempting to dismantle the status quo be effectively portrayed as an attempt to undermine our constitution and the American way? I'd be willing to roll the dice and try an experiment with proportional representation. I speculate the majority wouldn't. The strength of the "party within the voter" cannot be underestimated. Our two main parties simplify the world for the average voter. They reduce the amount of time and energy needed for recognizing our heroes and the villains who seek to sabotage us.

Jeffrey

[Sand]

[ QUOTE ]


They sincerely believe they are enabling families and individuals to experience MORE FREEDOM. For example, they would argue the internet gambling prohibition will undermine easy access to the life controlling addiction of gambling. This will help free the person held in bondage to this sin. As a result, Joe Gambler will experience a newfound freedom (the absense of enslavement to gambling sin). Family values is bolstered as dad is no longer online playing Texas Holdem but has time to lead the family in Bible study or whatever.


[/ QUOTE ]

Gambling is not a sin. I don't know where that comes from, but it has no Biblical justification whatsoever.

The Bible makes a few references to gambling, none negative.
In fact, the one most on point is very on point:

[ QUOTE ]

Joshua 18

Division of the Rest of the Land

1 The whole assembly of the Israelites gathered at Shiloh and set up the Tent of Meeting there. The country was brought under their control, 2 but there were still seven Israelite tribes who had not yet received their inheritance.

3 So Joshua said to the Israelites: "How long will you wait before you begin to take possession of the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, has given you? 4 Appoint three men from each tribe. I will send them out to make a survey of the land and to write a description of it, according to the inheritance of each. Then they will return to me. 5 You are to divide the land into seven parts. Judah is to remain in its territory on the south and the house of Joseph in its territory on the north. 6 After you have written descriptions of the seven parts of the land, bring them here to me and I will cast lots for you in the presence of the LORD our God. 7 The Levites, however, do not get a portion among you, because the priestly service of the LORD is their inheritance. And Gad, Reuben and the half-tribe of Manasseh have already received their inheritance on the east side of the Jordan. Moses the servant of the LORD gave it to them."

8 As the men started on their way to map out the land, Joshua instructed them, "Go and make a survey of the land and write a description of it. Then return to me, and I will cast lots for you here at Shiloh in the presence of the LORD." 9 So the men left and went through the land. They wrote its description on a scroll, town by town, in seven parts, and returned to Joshua in the camp at Shiloh. 10 Joshua then cast lots for them in Shiloh in the presence of the LORD, and there he distributed the land to the Israelites according to their tribal divisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Division of assets by random chance. Not only that, but the Holy Land divided by random chance in the presence of the Lord.

That is about as on point as it gets.

Any religious person saying gambling is a sin is misinterpreting the Bible BADLY.