Religious underpinnings of online gaming bill (long).

[Jeff Oneye]

[ QUOTE ]
op, what do you have against hate crime legislation? Maybe Im missing some underlying issue here with the implications of these laws. And while I agree that the welfare system is horribly flawed, I do believe in some sort of gov't assistence for people who have fallen on hard times. Really messed up unfortunate stuff can happen to put a hard working person out in the streets, are they just supposed to chalk it up as a bad beat as the world passes them by?

Besides thoes few discrepencies I largely agree with what youve said. People are stuck on being affiliated with a certain party. It comes to a point where they dont even care what the party is doing. They just blindly vote. Its very sad, out political system is pretty crappy, hopefully atleast one other party arises to compete.

[/ QUOTE ]


Greetings,

Thank you for feedback and inquiry. I should start off by explaining why I included "liberal democrats" in a post about religious conservatives trying to undermine online gambling. In hindsight, I think my motivation was twofold. One, I was trying to give fair treatment to conservative republicans by pointing out they aren't the only villains in the "war against personal freedoms." Secondly, I was trying to make the point that rigid ideologies are generally dangerous and undesireable irrespective of whose advocating them (religious or secular, conservative or liberal, republican or democrat).

I wasn't hoping to argue my specific political beliefs. Rather, my goal was just to show a relationship between inflexible ideology and unfortunate consequences. Now it just occured to me that I better be careful about how much faith I'm willing to place in my own civil libertarian philosophies so I don't succumb to the same folly ;-)

Neverthless, to address your specific questions about my personal beliefs. The reason I don't support hate crimes legislation is because I believe you should punish people based on demonstrated criminal behavior and not based on speculation about "wrong" or "bad" beliefs.

In regards to your other questions, I do believe in a minimal (but sufficient) safety net to protect the poor elderly, disabled, orphans, and those who legitimately can't fend for themselves. In the past I believed private charity was the exclusive answer but now I'm uncertain as to the 'best' policy.

As I've gotten older and tried to study and implement useful philosophy (e.g. Epictetus, Bertrand Russell, Albert Ellis, etc.) I've started to appreciate the self-defeating nature of dichotomous black and white thinking. Generally speaking, rigid ideologies result in some really destructive irrational beliefs and behaviors. Unlike those hellbent on instituting their vision of moral order or social fairness, I believe you should be free to choose your own pursuits unless you're trampling on my freedoms in the process. So generally, we pretty much see eye to eye.

And yes, some people have an unquestioning acceptance of their favorite political party or ideology. In this country that means the majority of voters will vote Republican or Democrat as a matter of rote. It's a nice cognitive tool for simplifying a complex word; the label 'republican' or 'democrat' is a simple way to discern the best choice. I share your hope that another party (or multiple parties) prove viable, however, I'm not optimistic. The most realistic chance of this happening would be under proportional representation. Unfortunately, our "winner take all" system (plurality) pretty ensures the status quo.

Jeffrey

[Jeff Oneye]

Greetings Paul,

Your post caught my attention for a couple of reasons. First of all, I'm almost certain that we have spoken in the past regarding Canterbury and low-limit stud games. If I recall correctly, you used to use the screen name "ServusChristi" on RGP or some other forum(s)? Also, I remember you emphasized being a responsible low-roller who was fascinated with the strategic and social aspects of poker.

Also, I wanted to congratulate you on your academic success. The last time we spoke I believe you were in seminary. It appears your commitment has culminated in a position of great responsibility. I'm sure you'll constitute a great asset to your church. All indications suggest the world doesn't suffer from an overabundance of reasoned and inquisitive religious authorities.

Thanks for sharing a Roman Catholic vantage point on gambling. The notion of a church accepting recreational drinking or gambling is a bit foreign to me. I was raised in the Assemblies of God (a very large pentecostal church). We were taught gambling was sinful idolatory, which dissociated people from God. So, at an early age I unfortunately developed a dichotomous, black and white ideology. In more recent years I learned to think more rationally and abandoned my rigid religious ideologies.

Nevertheless, your story is refreshing and even quite hopeful. Thanks for sharing it as it constitutes a nice reminder that not everybody can be encapsulated with labels such as "Christian conservative." Perhaps I have a propensity to relate my personal experience with some christians to all christians. And, of course, that's unfair and just perpetuates misunderstanding.

However, it's indisputable that one of the main enemies of poker (and personal freedom in general) are Christian conservative republicans. As your example illustrates, it's wise to be cognizant of the limitations and liabilities of generalizations. Being artfully tactful with language and avoiding unnecessary generalizations will go a long way to promoting constructive dialogue. On the downside, I doubt I'll win many converts.

Good luck at Canterbury,

Jeffrey