November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]

Here is a start for you on gambling / Bible - you can easily search for more.

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/castlots.html

And the fact it was used, in the Bible, says all the more about the absurdity of the FoF and others position.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand your post. My point is that to my knowledge "gambling" in the bible is used as a social device to settle disputes. We favor gambling because it is fun, which by nomenclature is against what FoF believes in. So, the instances of gambling chronicled in the Bible has no bearing on the absurdity of FoF's position.

[oldbookguy]

As I stated, that is a start, YOU can easily research more.

From the dividing of land to many other uses.

For fun or settling disputes, gambling, is, well, gambling.


obg

[4_2_it]

FoF can make a Biblical case against gambling by using a definition that incorporates attributes associated with the sins of Greed or Coveteousness. Casting lots is a red herring. Do we really want to try and argue that playing poker is the same as rolling some bones or flipping a roman coin?

Bottom line is we aren't going to convince most politicians to change their views by making a Biblical argument that God is 'neutral' regarding gambling. For the politicians that can be swayed, I doubt they would take our word over Dobson's.

[oldbookguy]

This is true and no we do not want to, just a simple point, gambling is actually in the Bible, no matter what odd argument is used by those who say it is wrong according to the Bible.

obg

[Berge20]

I'm glad I just saw the last few days of posts today--it would have put me on tilt.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
FoF can make a Biblical case against gambling by using a definition that incorporates attributes associated with the sins of Greed or Coveteousness. Casting lots is a red herring. Do we really want to try and argue that playing poker is the same as rolling some bones or flipping a roman coin?

Bottom line is we aren't going to convince most politicians to change their views by making a Biblical argument that God is 'neutral' regarding gambling. For the politicians that can be swayed, I doubt they would take our word over Dobson's.

[/ QUOTE ]


No the real point is that no single argument is going to win the day for us. Neither is any single method of action all gain from the synergy of all the others. A single tide to some degree raises all boats, well exect for those full of holes which are already sunk and thus are the only objects that in effect get "deeper", but only in relative terms if you can't breath underwater.


D$D

[kidpokeher]

Sorry to throw cold water on things but this article in AP seems to indicate the Treasury Dept is looking to move even further than the proposed regulations, turning the banks into cops and making them analyze checks and wire transfers.

Strange considering the proposed regulations stated this wouldn't be economically feasible.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5301747.html

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry to throw cold water on things but this article in AP seems to indicate the Treasury Dept is looking to move even further than the proposed regulations, turning the banks into cops and making them analyze checks and wire transfers.

Strange considering the proposed regulations stated this wouldn't be economically feasible.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5301747.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for posting that. Those are comments from the hearing.

I hope we'll all continue to post comments on the regs. Thanks.

[TheEngineer]

X-post: Here's my post-hearing letter to the Committee. I hope you'll all write to your congressman and senators about the hearing. Any opinions on the letter? Thanks.

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


November 21, 2007

House Judiciary Committee
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Conyers and the House Judiciary Committee:

I am writing in response to the Committee’s Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers. Specifically, I am writing concerning Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s statements that online gaming should be a state issue. I agree one hundred percent, which is why I disagree with Rep. Goodlatte position on this issue one hundred percent.

Rep. Goodlatte said he favors leaving gaming law under the purview of the states, even with regard to online poker. He said (to Ms. Annie Duke):
[indented in letter]“That is the whole point of the legislation that was passed, to enable individual states to enforce their laws regarding the laws that they have in those states.”

However, he readily admitted at this hearing that his goal is to take from states the right to allow their residents to play interstate or international Internet poker. He said (again, to Ms. Annie Duke):
[indented in letter]“But the fact of the matter is that I would like to have a ban on all interstate transactions with regard to betting. I would support any legislation that did that, but I will also support any legislation that goes as far as I can possibly take it to go, and that is exactly what the legislation we passed is.”

One notable aspect of Internet poker as it exists today is that a large number of players are drawn from across the globe. This provides economies of scale and competition between sites, both of which keep costs down and quality up. The large player pool also allows for a superior product, as there are always many games of various types and stakes from which to choose. Rep. Goodlatte advocates taking this right from the states. In its place, he proposes forcing states that do not wish to prohibit their residents from playing Internet poker to set up in-state operations that may be far inferior to and more expensive than those obtainable in the broader market. As states can already make interstate Internet poker illegal within their borders, a federal ban on interstate Internet poker is unnecessary. Rep. Goodlatte has a piece of paper signed by forty-eight state attorneys general stating that they do not regulate or license Internet gaming, but only a handful of those states actually prohibit Internet poker. If these states wished to not have interstate Internet poker, they would have passed legislation prohibiting it, especially if they wanted the federal government to take the unusual step of enforcing it.

Unlike bans like as the one Rep. Goodlatte advocates, both HR 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act (SGPA), and HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (IGREA) respect and enhance the traditional rights of states to legislate gaming within its borders. SGPA clarifies that the Wire Act does not apply to Internet poker and other games of skill, thereby allowing states to decide if they will permit its residents to play online poker or not. IGREA respects the rights of states to determine what gaming it permits within its borders by permitting states to opt out. States only stand to gain with passage of these pieces of legislation.

The bottom line is that I want to keep my right to play poker online. I am an American and I vote. Last year’s Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 woke up millions of other poker players just like me. We will all vote for their freedoms in 2008. I encourage the members of the Committee to listen to the voters and support SGPA and IGREA.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Here is a start for you on gambling / Bible - you can easily search for more.

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/castlots.html

And the fact it was used, in the Bible, says all the more about the absurdity of the FoF and others position.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand your post. My point is that to my knowledge "gambling" in the bible is used as a social device to settle disputes. We favor gambling because it is fun, which by nomenclature is against what FoF believes in. So, the instances of gambling chronicled in the Bible has no bearing on the absurdity of FoF's position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wikipedia says you're both right (of course, that's a bit of a circular reference [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ):

[ QUOTE ]
Focus on the Family also supports prohibition of all gambling in America. This position has created some controversy within the Christian community, as gambling is not prohibited in the Bible[5]. This schism is evidenced by the fact that many churches hold gambling contests, especially bingo, to raise funds. Focus’ insistence on this position, as a result, has been interpreted as “extra-Biblical doctrine” that was created by some within the Christian Right who are personally opposed to gambling. At the November 14, 2007 House Judiciary Committee hearing entitled “Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers”[6], Family Research Council Vice President Tom McClusky testified that his organization favored banning Internet poker in the United States. When questioned further by Rep. Steven Cohen [D-TN] on how much gambling FRC advocated banning, McClusky testified that FRC wished to ban all gambling in America, including even poker[7]. Upon hearing this, Rep. Cohen incredulously asked "is there any fun you are for?", leading many in the blogosphere to nickname FoF “Foes of Fun”[8].

[/ QUOTE ]