Spoke with my Congressman yesterday

[BillJames]

[ QUOTE ]
Most laws deal with morality in some way (except for those like which side of the road you drive on). The source of these laws come from somewhere, and for many it comes from religious belief. This is not wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is wrong if you are making policy based upon your own narrow moral beliefs for the entire nation. Policies should be based upon what is best for society and individuals -- determined not by moral code, but by rational thought process. If you want to live your life by a certain moral code, then that's fine. It's when it's pushed on everyone else that it's a problem.

Gambling is a great example. If you have reasons for it being banned because of some neutral reason that it will cost society in the long run (because of long-term effects on children, many people getting addicted, put existing casinos out of business, etc.), then I disagree with you, but we can talk about it. If you view is that gambling should be banned because it's against your own moral code...nope, that's not gonna work.

If someone doesn't want to gamble because it's against their moral code, THEN DON'T GAMBLE. They shouldn't push that belief on everyone else, however. This is exactly what the Christian Coalition and other such groups do on a daily basis across a whole spectrum of issues. I'm not telling them how to live, so stop telling me how to live. I don't want their ridiculous moral codes.

[retleftolc]

Heres the thing about the OP though . . . we dont even know how this got brought in to the conversation. Say the original poster said something like; Religion based policy is for dolts, and those that support said policy should be excommunicated from the country.

Congressman could have replied; Blah Blah Blah I thought Frank of Arimathea was a 5:2 shot at that 12th spot, but they drew lots instead.

Or congressman could have opened the conversation with; Hello, you amoral, agnost, son of a b(^%h! They gambled it up for the 12th apostle spot after Judas(the yankee Bas&*^d, agnost) red coated Jesus's arse!

Im just saying it seems like a good bit ASSuming was done to get you so fired up.

And, Meg chill, its all cool cat. Just offer to play him heads up for his soul. Winner takes on the others belief system!

Ret

[retleftolc]

I was talking to a upitty buddy of mine. He is a major contributor to some of the reps for GA. He seems to think that we will have a casino lined up(probably in underground ATL) by 2010.

Kinda funny how moral views change when a state realizes it can bank hundreds of thousands a day from a few casinos, huh!

[BillJames]

[ QUOTE ]
Im just saying it seems like a good bit ASSuming was done to get you so fired up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if it is the case that this particular Congressman hasn't based his previous support for anti-gambling legislation one iota on pushing a "moral code" (and I believe he has, especially given his public positions on other legislation), then if you cannot see that groups like the Christian Coalition are pushing their moral code on this issue then you are quite naive indeed.

[retleftolc]

Hey, no need to get snippy!!! Im on your side with this bill.

On the other hand, how do we decide what "outta be a law." Whether a religious belief or personal belief, your reason to support legislation is based on your belief (read personal moral code). Even if youre an axe murderer, you have a moral code. I.E., You wont axe murder bunnies, thats just wrong!!

So unless you are anarchy man, then you cant say dont push your religious beliefs, because I wouldnt push mine on you.

Oh yeah btw, what would an Anarchist say to support his legislation- "I, Anarchy Man, BELIEVE you should be able to do what you want, and laws are for stupid dummy people."

Ret

[LesJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Heres the thing about the OP though . . . we dont even know how this got brought in to the conversation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Essentially, religion and his personal belief system was brought into the equation by me for two reasons.

First of all, I am very familiar with this congressman's background as a Baptist Minister. I was wondering if his previous support for similar legislation had some sort of practical or pragmatic reasoning, or if it was simply a "religious" principle of his.

Secondly, I have a good friend whose wife is struggling with the concept of him playing an occassional game of Texas Hold Em from a biblical standpoint. In addition to some research I did on the subject, I thought getting a former preacher's insight on the matter would be at least a little enlightening.

So. . . to clarify. . . I did not call Congressman Lewis about a public policy issue and hear him respond, "Well. . . the Bible says . . ." I was the one who inquired about the Biblical implications of this issue.

Les

[BillJames]

Thanks for the clarification, LesJ. Hopefully this particular Congressman will not let his faith in the Christian Bible cloud what is best for the country as a whole. Unfortunately, I can't say that this is true for many politicians.

As far as how to make laws, once somebody is in the position of making law for the entire country, they cannot push a particular moral view over everybody simple because they think everyone OUGHT to live that way. Rather, they have to use a netural, rational reasoning process to come to the best answer (which certainly won't always be clear, which is why disagreement exists).

We have laws against axe murdering because such activities disrupt everyday life and obviously can affect society in a very negative way (constant fear, etc.). Laws against stuff like drug use or gambling are murkier, because there are arguments for why it damages society as a whole (like societal costs of addition). However, if the alleged harms (supposed addiction) are outweighed by the benefits (individual choice, entertainment), then gambling should be allowed.

THIS is the thought process that needs to be used for policy, not whether a Bible or some murky "moral code" says so. Unfortunately, this idea is clearly ignored in areas of the US and other countries like Iran.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
I was talking to a upitty buddy of mine. He is a major contributor to some of the reps for GA. He seems to think that we will have a casino lined up(probably in underground ATL) by 2010.

[/ QUOTE ]Wow, that would truly be something. People might start going to underground ATL [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. Seriously, I can't believe that could happen here. I just moved here about 9 months ago and was shocked by the law that you can't by liquor on Sundays- could we possibly get legal gambling? I'd love to be suprised.

[ QUOTE ]
Kinda funny how moral views change when a state realizes it can bank hundreds of thousands a day from a few casinos, huh!

[/ QUOTE ]Just illustrates how much of it all is really politics and nothing more.

[retleftolc]

I understand how things out to work. And . . . One of my hallmarks of conversation is using ridiculous examples to set my points up. It always makes people more emotional, therefore I win more arguments.

Also, I thought we ELECTED person to represent the majority view(read 50%+ of the 20% that turned out to vote) for a certain area of the country. Those elected officials would vote based on what is best for their constituents, and the country.

You know, like building a super collider in TX for billions. Wow, those TX's really needed a collider!!!


Ret(the agitator)

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
Policies should be based upon what is best for society and individuals -- determined not by moral code, but by rational thought process.

[/ QUOTE ]Ok, but how do you define what is "Best" unless you have some idea about what is "good" and what is "bad".

Just about every law (murder, stealing, etc.) comes down to some moral belief about what is right and what is wrong. Murder is only against the law because we agree that it is morally a "bad" thing. A pretty simple example, but it illustrates the point. Some people believe that this notion of murder being bad is a religious thing; some thing its a law of nature. Regardless of the source, we all (or mostly) agree. The source of our moral belief doesn't matter- that we agree enough to make it a law does.