The Church Report (to which every observer of Christianity should subscribe) has a very interesting article from a pastor urging Christians to argue against more liberal gambling laws not by issues of morality, but of economics. Or at least what he considers economics. The pastor makes the point that it is not “loving” or compassionate to not understand how much increased gambling hurts the poor. I like the general point he is making but it is an excellent study in the motivations of someone like Santorum versus what Ronald Reagan thought. And it never ends well for those wanting to shield people from personal responsibility in the guise of “help.”
Read the whole thing first but here are some excerpts:
Kentucky, the state where I live, is abuzz these days with discussion over expanded gambling.The governor here wants it, and conservative Christian groups don’t. This argument is hardly limited to here. I lived through it in my ancestral home on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, as the casino industry promised an economic turnaround if voters would just give them the right to exist. Almost every state is involved in some discussion of state-sponsored gambling.
Gambling is a form of economic predation. Gambling grinds the faces of the poor into the ground. It benefits multinational corporations while oppressing the lower classes with illusory promises of wealth, and with (typically) low-wage, transitory jobs that simultaneously destroy every other economic engine of a local community.
First of all, most of the “market” for gambling comes from those in despair, seeking meaning and a future. The most important thing a church can do to undercut the local casino is to preach the gospel. By that I don’t just mean how to get saved (although that’s certainly at the root of it). I mean the awe-filled wonder in the face of the really good news that Jesus is crucified and resurrected, the old dragon is overthrown.
This means asking the state not to use acquisitiveness and covetousness to separate people from their means of living. But it also means modeling a different kind of ethic in our churches. The power of gambling lies in a vision of the “good life,” and that’s a vision that is co-opted by the gambling industry, not created by them. It is fueled by our fallen vision of limitless growth, of limitless acquisition.
My reply:
The author makes some excellent points. However, the issue of personal freedom is overlooked.
It is not gambling which creates poverty. It is the lack of personal discipline and discretion. My grandmother would look forward to
semi-annual trips to Reno. She would set aside $200 during the year and would have the time of her life with her friends. What business is it of the government (or Christians for that matter) if I decide to spend the same amount of money for an evening at the track that some families spend on paintball or canoe outings?
Like alcohol, it is the ABUSE of those who can not take personal responsibility or put their trust in "fate" instead of God, hard work or some other more virtuous decision. Should we also then argue against banning worship at an Islamic temple because they are putting their faith in a false god? Should we ban fast foods and Cheetos because the uneducated believe they are valid forms of nutrition - and yet will create a poverty of health?
A community certainly has the freedom to dictate what they want upheld there. It will shock some to know (after these last thoughts) that I do NOT think casinos are a great idea. If it was up for referendum in my neighborhood or city, I would vote against it. But NOT because it was immoral, or that I am doing a favor to all those helpless poor people. My basis is simply that I don’t see any evidence that it helps a community be more productive, more free and more stable.
Christians get caught up in trying to focus their (well intentioned) efforts on removing a potential "risk" rather than teaching and exhorting personal empowerment through knowledge, discipline and faith in God.
This is the lesson of Prohibition, isn’t it? Drinking is BIBLICAL - drunkenness is unbiblical. Why is it ok for the disciples to cast lots for a Judas replacement, but prohibit others who cast lots to Mammon? This is an issue of freedom.
“First take the log out of your own eye,” teaches making sure you are judging yourself first before meddling with others.
“But PolitiJim! The next verse says ‘THEN YOU CAN SEE CLEARLY TO TAKE THE SPECK OUT OF YOUR NEIGHBOR’S EYE.’
Yes, but I don’t see the right to point it out to them, hold them on the ground and suck it out whether they want you to or not. William Bradford even said that the failure of socialism at Plymouth Rock was due to NOT obeying the bible. Sure, you can VOLUNTARILY show Christian love and mercy to someone who needs it but scriptures like this are pretty clear:
For each will have to bear his own load.
Peter says not to be a busybody in other people’s lives. And Jesus even described the Kingdom of God no less, as finding buried treasure, NOT telling the farmer who owned it that it was there, and buying it for yourself. (Capitalism!)
So what does society do with those too unfortunate to have good parenting or too rebellious to listen those wise parents?
Several studies have found that parents who are authoritative —communicating expectations with a give-and-take style with their children — are more effective at keeping them from alcohol abuse than those who are just authoritarian. The point is, that after lifting Prohibition (the complete authoritarian approach) we did NOT go to complete permissiveness - but an “authoritarian give and take” which is exactly what works best in the home. (Incidentally, historians wonder how we ever created the Constitution and Federalist papers with the enormous amounts of alcohol consumed by our founding fathers.)
There simply is no way to argue imposing government control of freedoms without giving the GOVERNMENT - not the people - power. And when government has the power, it will prevent the LEARNING of the hard lessons of life (like self-discipline) that breeds to more necessity to manage all the other areas of their life as well.
I no longer live in Kentucky (my son does), and I think it is clear that objective, non-religious analysis of other gaming developments around the country have NOT produced either the promised economic benefits or cultural improvements to the area.
That alone should be enough strength to argue the point without falsely teaching legalism to those we are trying to reach with the message of grace.
HOW THIS RELATES TO THE SANTORUM CANDIDACY
The Santorum model (as shown by his statements on SOPA and social engineering voting record) is that he sees government as an arm to deem “illegal” anything he see’s immoral. I’m not saying that as a Christian I am not tempted by the idea. What a great world where we could outlaw the demeaning sexualization of women, the coarsening of culture by depraved and profane selfishness through words and pictures and the prohibition of cheating and uncaring greed. But as a Christian, I know that God knew better than me when He admitted – NO ONE can be saved by “the law.” It is good for instruction and direction and teaching, but not only as individuals, but as a society, we have got to grow spiritual maturity to make this country work.
This is why John Adams said, this form of American government was unsuitable for anything other than a “moral” people. Freedom without morality leads to excess. Imposed morality by government, eliminates freedom.
Real “freedom” is the ability to make mistakes and self-govern one’s self. It is a far more (New Testament) biblical model than imposing more “law” through government. And if you have teenagers, you know imposing more rules doesn’t teach them how to handle responsibility.
Just look at Rick Santorum’s tax plan. The Tax Foundation gave it a “D+.” The American Enterprise Institute says that “may be generous” and calls it SOCIAL ENGINEERING. Why? I’m glad you asked. AEI surmises it:
- The tripling of personal deductions for children radically reduces the percentage of taxpayers paying ANY income tax whatsoever.
- He retains most of the existing deductions ensuring that complexity is NOT reduced and revenue would be lower.
- He only radically incentives manufacturing although our economy is now driven largely by service based businesses. (Call it corporate engineering.)
- It’s highly implausible it could get through Congress at all and is so poorly designed it likely wouldn’t create the uniform growth other plans would.
It shows a philosophy that too many spiritual Santorum swooners are ignoring. It’s the same philosophy exposed on his FOXBusiness interview where he claimed that “radical individualism” has never succeeded and REAL conservatism gets involved in what goes on in the bedroom. I wish this WAS a one time faux pas, but he has said the same thing in many different ways including his famous 2003 philosophy glimpse where he insisted that homosexuality BE OUTLAWED.
AEI gives a hilarious example of Santorum Engineering in his desire to ONLY give manufacturing the best tax breaks:
The radical differences between taxes for manufacturing and other activities would introduce perhaps the biggest and most damaging tax distortion in American history. It would also invite endless fraud. As I type this piece, I am manufacturing sentences, am I not? Shouldn't my income be taxed as manufacturing?
As I’ve said recently on this blog; A MORAL change in our culture can not be manipulated by government. Certainly, you can incentive good behavior and penalize bad behavior, but not when it is at the cost of the REST of society who will have to pay for it. HotAir Blogger MadisonConservative is correct in labeling Santorum a “Statist Theocrat.” It didn’t work well for Augustus. It was terrible to the Catholic Church and Monarchies of the world, and I could have sworn we had this discussion back in in 1976. And in 1776. And in 2006, when the Big Government spending of the GOP, where Rick was the #3 man in Senate leadership, lost us control of the government.
Hoping Bush would not be the Big Government conservative we feared didn’t make it so. Hoping that Bill Clinton was not the liberal womanizer rumored in Arkansas did not make it so. And somehow ignoring what Romney and Santorum have DONE while they were governing, will not make them be limited government, radical reform guys our country is dying for.
And now (Just for kicks) watch this documentary of Evangelic Christians who gamble to take the devil’s money. Legalists, Southern Baptists and Gamblers Anonymous are to be warned. It will freak you out. But just to ease your conscience before your Bible curls up, let me tell you a quick story of the famous firebrand preacher, Smith Wigglesworth.
One day the drunks and gamblers at a saloon saw the venerated vicar walking down the street. The barkeep screamed in ecstasy at the joke he was about to play, and got his patrons to join in the fun. Grabbing a $50 dollar bill out of the cash register, he and his brood went to the front of the tavern and screamed, “Hey WIGGLE! We got an offering for ya! I bet you’re too scared to even come near us to get it!!”
Of course the patrons howled in laughter until Smith corrected his course directly at them. Wigglesworth grabbed the bill with a grimace and began walking away.
“Wait!”, shrieked the bar keeper, “You don’t understand, that’s gambling and liquor money!”
Wigglesworth didn’t skip a beat walking off as he turned over his shoulder and said,
“This money has served the devil long enough. Time for it serve God!”
Enjoy:
2 comments:
Great post, Jim. Santorum's rise in strength in recent polls has really caused me to worry about if he actually won. His legislative record, which I did a post on, gives me great pause too - it was usually conservative, but when he veered from that, the results were terrible. In a general election, even the human-economic-catastrophe Obama would roll against Santorum.
PolitiJim,
I think I love you! ;) Your clarity and lucidity with your wordsmithing is so refreshing and enjoyable. You have a way of cutting right to the bone of the matter. Not sure how you have the time and energy to do this but I thank you anyway for the opportunity to read it!
nolibgal
Post a Comment