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

[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 [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] ), 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/gamb...A000004244.cfm . It sounds like a mirror-image of our actions. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[/ 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! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ 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!