Reflections on the Round Table on Gambling
Posted on Mon, 08/02/2010 - 09:20 in Viewpoint
I was privileged to be among the small audience that supported the round table discussion on gambling, sponsored by Generation Now, which was held last evening (July 29th) at UCCI. Aside from the awful acoustics, which made it difficult for both panellists and audience to clearly hear what was being said, it was an evening well-spent. It was one of those occasions that offered more light than heat, for a change.
All panellists appeared to have done their homework, at least sufficiently to support their positions, but I was especially impressed with the arguments of Dr. Frank McField (whose position I do not support) and Mr. Billy Adam. They gave the evening the spark that was needed to hold our focus.
Dr. Frank, in reflecting on the question as to whether Christians are right in opposing gambling on moral grounds, rightly stated that moral convictions change. Consider slavery, for example (my example, not his). It thrived for hundreds of years because the church and society in general saw nothing morally wrong with it. Yet it was because the church and society changed their moral stance on slavery that it was eventually abolished.
Dr. Frank suggested that what we need is more empirical evidence as to the costs vs. the benefits of gaming in order to make an informed decision. Morality alone was not sufficient grounds to prohibit the legalization of gambling, was his point. But, if I may be permitted to use the example of slavery again, I would remind Dr. Frank (and being the astute man that he is, I’m sure he would see my point) that the abolition of the slave trade by the British parliament was due to the relentless advocacy of William Wilberforce, who used empirical evidence to show that slavery was morally reprehensible. In other words, empirical evidence is not self-serving; it is the ammunition that wins the war, or to use another analogy, the evidence that proves the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Touching also on the worth of empirical evidence, Rev. Nicholas Sykes, responding to the question as to whether a decision could be made on the basis of comparing economic benefits to social costs associated with gambling, rightly stated that the question itself was based on a faulty premise, that one could compare economic benefits to social costs; it would be like comparing apples and oranges, he noted.
As none of the panellists denied that there are ethical or moral issues associated with gambling, I was left wondering exactly what quality or quantity of evidence gambling advocates would need to quell all arguments in their minds. A chance meeting today with another member of last night’s audience shed some light on that for me. It seems that the real answer is money, lots of money. So, in the end, it is all an exercise in situational ethics: gambling may be morally suspect, but if it can inject sufficient money into the Cayman economy, then the ends justify the means—presumably if there is an astounding amount of money then the moral issue totally evaporates.
As I stated, it was a most helpful experience. I am left, however, with the clear conviction that every single panellist was conscious that the subject of gambling has implications beyond economics, that there are considerations in the moral or ethical domains that must be contended with as well. And that being the case, do we want to be the generation that legalizes what is at least morally questionable, only to have it abolished by future generations after it has wreaked havoc on our society?
Email this pageViewpoints
Comment Policy
The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of CNS or any individual staff member. All comments are posted subject to approval by CNS. Read more
Recent Comments
- "Unfortunately, this article
1 hour 10 min ago - That picture is such a
1 hour 27 min ago - Looks like Cayman not out of
1 hour 29 min ago - This is coming from a country
1 hour 44 min ago - Contempt of court is an
1 hour 44 min ago - all because of a lack of
1 hour 47 min ago - To all the people who go on
2 hours 2 min ago - One can collect more evidence
2 hours 5 min ago - there is also the
2 hours 5 min ago - I, for one, am throughly
2 hours 16 min ago
Search
Join Our Mailing List
Follow CNS via ...
Facebook Twitter RSS
Comments
What is the draw to having a
What is the draw to having a casino in Cayman???
In days of old to gamble you had to go to Las Vegas, then they added Atlantic City... since then something like fifteen states have full blown casino operations.
South Florida, has no less than a dozen casino's with poker, black jack and slots.
Nassau has two huge casino's...
Why... would somebody want to come to Cayman to gamble?
Gambling in Cayman is just
Gambling in Cayman is just plain silly!!!
The company that did the survey estimated the Government would net $1.2 million a year... read that number again... $1.2 million per year. That's $`100,000 a month, $25,000 a week.
Compared to our overall economy this is literally ... pocket change and not worth the effort.
The argument is just math, we simply DO NOT HAVE enough population to justify having a local lottery.
As for land based casino's... we can't have a 2,000 hospital (and) a casino.
We can have one, or the other... but not both.
The hospital is already approved, has the UK blessing, financial backing and would be considerably better for Cayman than any casino operation.
Gaming is a dead issue... stop talking about it and move on.
Meanwhile, back to the
Meanwhile, back to the gambling issue,
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/845919--online-gambling-coming-to-ontario
The world would be such a
The world would be such a better place without the Bible, Quran..and all the other "delusional books". Imagine if each Sunday (globally) was spent on science discussions, and collaborating new discoveries/breakthroughs in all areas of science, and technology. At the minimum you would have “brains” trained from an early age to be more objective, and therefore likely to be more tolerant of others, as an educated society would most likely befall a more peaceful society.
These infectious religious ideologies are more dangerous to mankind than any viruses, or other microbes evolution has ever unleashed.
Replace the Pastors with Science Lecturers.
“Yes! I went there”
May I add, replace the
May I add, replace the Politicians as well. Then we will have no problems with neglect to our environment. If one of the criterias of the legislature of a Democratic government is to have a degree in the field of Science, imagine the logical and rational laws that would be made for the benefit of mankind. I guess we would have to wait another 1000 years of foolish wars in order to learn from our mistakes. I wish I could live to see that day when there will be Peace and the world One
Agree 100%!!!!!!!
Agree 100%!!!!!!!
Your obvious hatred for
Your obvious hatred for religious people is a serious threat to the civil liberties of mankind. You would like to create a 'master race' who think only about science and technology, despise religion and persecute those that practice it on the basis that you deem them to be a threat to mankind. Eliminate the undesirables. Control the thoughts of everyone to conform to a system which only values science and intellectual achievement. You could even set out your vision and philosophy in a book and call it 'Mein Kampf'.
Of course Christians know that the Great Tribulation is coming and dangerous lunatics like yourself will be at the forefront preaching persecution in the name of peace.
Hatred, Lunatic, Master
Hatred, Lunatic, Master Race…hmm...now that I am aware that such words can be used to describe my ideology, and personality traits, Perhaps, I should try to seek out Dr. Kevorkian. Better yet, I could post my name here, then you and your friends could come “stone” me to my much deserved miserable end. I’m sure you would find a passage in your “good book” to justify your actions.
But my friend (because you are my friend), as I would not turn the other way, if I ever had to afford you emergency medical assistance, (despite the fact you may seek to have my head when you have recovered) the science community on a whole is about peace, and helping others. The atrocities, suffered by mankind as a result of religious ideologies are too numerous to mention (and I am not about to start a history lesson).
Perhaps, you didn’t notice more benefits for civilization comes out of the laboratories, rather than the Churches, Mosques...etc.
the one who is a lunatic is
the one who is a lunatic is you : )
Show me a time in history the scientist and technologist gathered together to persecute Christians. Don't be ignorant! Instead, I can show you a godzillian of instances where Christian groups gathered together to persecute scientists and average people!
I am not talking about
I am not talking about scientists and technologists. My comments were directed at the poster and his sentiments, and were entirely correct.
Ummm... Who said anything
Ummm...
Who said anything about creating a "master race"??? lol... please try to read what your critic is saying before you respond! Non-intelligent remarks just weakens your defense.
My post explained the comment
My post explained the comment 'master race'.
Try to read what your critic is saying before you respond. Non-intelligent remarks just weaken your defence.
A much more loving society
A much more loving society would be the result. Have you notice prior to Science advancing and helping humanity, the religious faiths would oppose their findings. Look at Christopher Columbus who said the world was round and the Church said it was flat. God is a God of reality, and beliefs are mental viruses that only causing division in the world. Look at the Taliban and their rediculous beliefs! Beliefs is just a mental idol when taken for real!
But God is a God of Science and all things of the natural order. If many church members ever realize this, all the ministers would be out of work - they won't be taking the people's monies.
Peace
It will soon be overrun by
It will soon be overrun by idiots, just like the internet.
You will be in like minded
You will be in like minded company then.
The issue is broader than
The issue is broader than whether there is a scripture passage. There are plenty of grounds on which to object outside of scripture, in particular the serious adverse social impact. But even if one is approaching the issue on the basis of Christian morality the issue is not answered by merely asking whether or not there is a specific passage in scripture prohibiting gambling. There is a great deal of morally repugnant behaviour that is not mentioned in scripture.
I want to call time on this
I want to call time on this thread on the grounds of Godwin's Law.
Google it little bloggers. Google it and know that Mr. H. Jack is very disappointed in your behaviour this weekend. Very disappointed indeed.
People About Gambling - there
People
About Gambling - there is no passage of scripture mentioned in the Bible. The Bible mentions about "casting lots," which I confessed is not like the modern day gambling, but reveals God's view of betting and resolving a situation by chance. Modern-day Gambling is done for the purpose of making a profit or recieving a profitable reward - doesn't have to be monies. But there is not one Bible passage found to condemn the practice. The Bible establishes principles which apply to the topic.
Now the real problem with gambling is that it is based on greed, covetousness, and worldliness and that the lifestyle of a gambler is not a lifestyle of righteousness.
"People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." (1 Timothy 6:9,10).
But note, I am going to say this as a Minister of the Gospel to the members of my church and other Christian people:
We need to be careful to not be legalistic when considering whether it is okay for a person to buy lottery tickets (for example). We should seek the Lord when making decisions about whether to participate in such activities and we should be careful not to judge others for their decisions in such matters. It is the SIN of Gambling - not Gambling itself that is condemn in the Bible.
Peace and Love to All
Pastor B
***** ENOUGH IS
*****
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!
Please can someone give me a Bible verse or passage where it states that GAMBLING is wrong???
If you can't please do us a favor - SHUT UP!
*****
When a poster starts typing
When a poster starts typing with block capitals, exclamation marks and demanding that others who disagree "shut up", you know they have lost the debate.
I was always told that if you
I was always told that if you cite Hitler or Jesus in a debate you are on to a loser.
That is too broad a
That is too broad a generalization. Wikipedia says "in many cases, those who are compared to Nazis (particularly if the comparison is apt) erroneously and/or mendaciously try to invoke Godwin's law as proof that their opponents have lost the debate/discussion regarding the topic at hand, the comparison being nullified without the comparison being substantively refuted".
A valid point is being made that we should not judge the morality of an action by its popularity. The Nazi policy of Jewish persecution was indeed popular with the German people and could not have been carried out without their tacit approval. Indeed the church was criticised for failing to speak out against this policy. The concept of humans rights exists precisely because the majority cannot be trusted to act morally with respect to minorities.
On this topic in particular, people are demanding bible verses.
I called Godwin on this
I called Godwin on this thread because of the nonsense Hitler postings further down the thread. It had become inane. I didn't say anything about anyone "winning". The level of argumentation on all sides was down to elementary school debate team before a decent coach got near the kids.
The Hitler/Jesus point of Khan Dhu pre-dates Godwin (and the internet). I was taught the same principle at one of my first high school debate coaching sessions.
My point is that it is a
My point is that it is a silly generalization and not a principle.
I have already explained the point of the illustration and that is not negated by appealing to whatever silliness you were taught for your high school debates. Lol.
What sort of person types
What sort of person types "LOL" in response to their own post?
My point was that the illustrations are inane and so detached from the issue at hand as to be meaningless, which most Nazi references are. This should be obvious to children let alone adults. Sadly I have sat through heated discussions on legal positivism at the highest academic levels which always degenerate into references to laws passed during the Third Reich. The Nazi reference may have validity but it lacks persuasiveness - that is the crux of my point, which seems to have missed you.
One does not need to quote Hitler to point out the concept of the tyranny of the majority. In fact it is better to avoid doing so if one can avoid it.
This is of course an entirely
This is of course an entirely different argument from saying, as you and other posters previously suggested, that if a poster mentions Hitler or Jesus then they have lost the debate.
I have used the example of Nazism precisely because it is extreme, notorious and not obscure. Using an extreme example to demonstrate the fallacy of an argument is a well established rhetorical technique. The only reason not to find it persuasive is because you hold on to this 'principle' that one should never/rarely mention Hitler in debates.
Nassau and Aruba are
Nassau and Aruba are continually touted here as the model to follow without any real investigation as to the impact the legalized gambling has had and is having there. Apparently the only thing that matters is that they make money out of legalized gambling. This is shallow thinking driven by panic. Panic seldom leads to sound decisions.
Dr. Myles Munro, a prominent Bahamian clergyman, is quoted as saying the following about the casino gambling industry in the Bahamas:
"Issues of prostitution among not only men but women have encouraged the sex industry. There's been suicide in the hotels related to the casinos, but we keep it quiet. The Government tries to play it down, but it's in our newspapers. People have shot themselves, jumped off balconies because of the money they have lost. The hotels ask us to come in and provide us with the names of people to meet with to counsel them, we have had to set up a ministry to deal with this activity."
I know that as soon as we say "clergy" some will dismiss these comments out of hand, but that simply amounts to prejudice.
Did you know that the Excelsior, the Aruba casino where Van der Sloot met Natalie Holoway, is run by convicted high-ranking Chicago mobster, Michael Posner?
Laws prohibiting or restricting locals from gamblings in the casinos in the Bahamas and Aruba simply do not work. In Aruba, the law dictates that residents are allowed to visit a casino only eight times a month. If and when they exceed this number of visits, the Internal Department of the government will send them a letter at home with the warning that the maximum standard for casino-visits has been reached. If this warning gets ignored, the resident is banned from casino-visits for one year. However, the Social Economic Council (SER) came to the conclusion, after they did an inquiry analysis on gambling on the island, that despite having 92 casino inspectors and 8 clerks, together 100 persons that ought to conduct the checking at the entrance of each casino, local visitors are almost never checked . Indeed, if the motive is for the govt. to maximise revenues one can expect it to turn a blind eye to violations.
Please, let's inform ourselves fully on the issue.This is too important an issue to be trivialized in the manner it is by most posters who try to erect the straw man of 'church trying to force their morality on the rest of society' issue.
We are still talking apples
We are still talking apples and oranges. The Bahamian and Aruban models allow locals in Aruba and limited connected Bahamian politicians and friends access to casinos. This creates an environment for locals to mingle with tourists which creates connections for unsavory activities. Non free standing Hotel only foreign guest only casino's IMHO will not create anymore unsavory activities in Cayman, that Cayman already has at this time.
Lachlan, re apples and
Lachlan, re apples and oranges you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth since you, amongst others, have hailed the Bahamas and Aruba as models to follow.
Yes you made your point and
Yes you made your point and well said. That is what an independent non political gaming authority must do. Licensed casino operators must police their patrons or face the closing of the facility and a hefty fine which is paid to the Government OR the doors don't open. 1) Yes we will license hotels with 250 rooms or more with internal non free standing casino's for visitors/non residents only. 2) Form a non political independent gaming authority. 3) Create regulations and policies custom tailored for The Cayman Islands. 4) Make sure there is an independent gaming monitoring service. 5) Direct the license fees and income directly to education, stay over tourism and social services.
Hey......you think I'm this Casino advocate. I am a "new income stream, new jobs advocate" , because the elected power brokers do not want to reduce the cost of the CIG or create any new income streams. They want to increase the debt and increase duties and fees which does nothing but increase the cost of living.
"an independent non political
"an independent non political gaming authority".
Do you really think such a thing could co-exist with the current administration?
Gambling is no different than
Gambling is no different than alcohol. It can become additive if abused. We, as adults capable of making our own decisions, should be able to control ourselves. Not everyone that drinks alcohol becomes an alcoholic just as not everyone that gambles becomes addicted. For the majority of people, drinking and gambling are just a social activity.
So apparently the ministers
So apparently the ministers would rather us abolish alcohol as well! We saw in history that it was impossible for the United State's Congress to abolish alcohol. It was a waste of government time and monies.
Ministers of Cayman, Pastor
Ministers of Cayman, Pastor Alson Ebanks, Reverend Nicholas Sykes... I too will speak out against the evils and sins of gambling. Like Martin Luther King Jr., I will even take to the streets and protest like he did against racism in America. Or protest, "speak out," exercise my freedom of speech like the Indian, Mahatma Ghandi, who through peaceful protest managed to overthrow the colonial British Empire during the years 1918 to 1947.
Jesus taught one mus fight sin with good. And his remedy agianst ignorance and sin is simple -
"Go ye into all the world and preach [and teach]" the truth. Tell it like it is!
In other words, speak out agianst the "addiction and vice of gambling" in love and humility; educate other about the pros and cons.
But Ministers, that is as far as I will take it. Just like I would not use my freedom of speech and expression to cause harm to anyone, I will not use it to go against "democratic representation." What is democratic representation? A form of government where governing power is derived from the people and for the people (whether good or bad).
It is this form of government that has protected the Church, religious body, and race of people from persecution and oppression. Everyone has a say and the laws of the land, are drafted in a way that it does not infringed on the rights of everybody else. You have the right to do whatever a free citizen does so long your right does not harm or infringe upon the rights of other citizens or people. There should therefore be no unification of church and state policies. In terms of belief and personal conviction, there should be a keen separation of those things from the government.
Today, what scares me is that you have religious leaders, relying more on the government or law-makers of the land to MORALLY CHANGE the world to mimic their MORAL CODE - than you have leaders who rely on the "power of their message" or the "power of God" to so.
So... to the Ministers of the Cayman Islands, I will join hands with you in speaking out what I see is a sin, not because I am intending to join your church, but because I see myself as a moral person. However, I am wary when I see certain Ministers wanting to have laws pass to enforce a moral code.
But let's ge this clear - I will never go against any democratic representation - never! Because it protects me and you! I will protest against such a religious, taliban-like endeavor! And I hope you Pastor Alson Ebanks and Rev. Nickolas Sykes do likewise
Peace and Love
"But let's ge this clear - I
"But let's ge this clear - I will never go against any democratic representation - never! Because it protects me and you"
What you are saying is that you will go along with anything if it is sufficiently popular. That is not a moral or principled position. This is precisely happened in Nazi Germany - it was popular to persecute the Jews. The Nazis only exploited that popular sentiment. Doing what is right may often mean that you are unpopular and maligned.
Jesus said "Blessed are you when people hate you, avoid you, insult you, and slander you because you are committed to the Son of Man!" (Luke 6:22 ISV). I think he must have many posters on CNS in mind. Just watch the thumbs down to prove my point.
Hello! That's because Adolph
Hello!
That's because Adolph Hitler was a DICTATOR! How could their have been any "democratic representation" of the people if he, being the head of the military, was pulling all the strings!!! You can't tell us that a whole nation just woke up one morning and decided to kill the Jews! That's rediculous!
I for one am sure that if power was taken out of the hands of Hitler, the people of Germany would not have went down the route of having a dictator who declared war on the world and exterminated millions of Jews.
So your argument of associating "democratic representation" with Nazi Germany regime, is a joke!
:o)
Why don't you try to enforce your morals on everybody some place else!!!
Why don't you try and read
Why don't you try and read some history. Hitler and the Nazi party were democratically voted into Power by the German people on their playing on the fears of the people over the Jews and Communists.
It was a couple of years later they managed to ban all other parties and form a dictatorship
The persecution of German Jews goes back to the 1300's when they were accused of causing the Black Death by poisoning the wells. Look up the Hep Hep riots of 1819
Infact he is a lovely link to educate yourself over plenty of pre Nazi anti Jewish laws
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_legislation_in_prewar_Nazi_Germany
So no the nation didn't just wake up one day to think Lets kill Jews. It had been happening for over a thousand years before that.
I think maybe you should have stayed back a grade or two you may have learned more
Why don't you try to enforce your IGNORANCE on everybody some place else!!!
I suggest that you study
I suggest that you study German history in this period before you post. Hitler did not come to power as head of the military, but as the leader of the Nazi political party. Hitler was very popular with the German people.He became a dictator on the strength of his personal popularity. He blamed the German defeat in WW I on the Jews and made them a scapegoat for many problems in Germany. He appealed to their baser instincts and in the process these overwhelmed any sense of morality with respect ot their treatment of the Jews that the majority may have had.
I have therefore established the point that because something is popular does not mean that it is the right thing to do.
Hitler was democratically
Hitler was democratically elected.
Ding Dong! Afterwards, did
Ding Dong!
Afterwards, did not that democratic representation eroded by Hitler's dictatorship???
Please, give it up. Don't try
Yes, you're right, I think.
Yes, you're right, I think.
LOL. i.e. "Oh no, I just
LOL. i.e. "Oh no, I just figured out that pointing this out helps the Christians' case about morality. Better retract real quick".
Ignore the thumbs-down! Of
Ignore the thumbs-down! Of course the commenter is right! Too much religious nuts here would want it to be otherwise
Vice is evil; however it is
Vice is evil; however it is with us and will not go away.
All vice has social downsides. Drugs like alcohol and nicotine are prime ``legal`` examples. Alcoholics and smokers are ``drug addicts`` just like heroin, cocaine and crack addicts.
Vice creates a vice mess. Broken homes and child neglect are the tip of the iceburg.
Making a vice illegal does not stop the consumption of vice. It only enriches criminals and does nothing to clean up the vice mess.
Making vice legal provides tax revenue to the government which hopefully will make a percentage of the tax revenue available to mitigate the vice mess.
However, if the government promotes vice so that it makes a big profit without putting money into vice mitigation programs, then it becomes the criminal.
The best course of action is to legalize vice, all of it, so that vice is regulated and provides government revenue to provide counselling services to those poor mis-guided individuals that need it.
Given the high crime rate in Cayman, get the churches out of the debate because they, to date, have clearly failed.
There is in fact longitudinal
There is in fact longitudinal evidence that decriminalizing and regulating drugs does work, in terms of reducing crime, lowering policing costs and does not lead to mass substance abuse problems. Check out the evidence from Portugal.
This has been The Economist's
This has been The Economist's editorial line for years, and the detailed annual articles arguing the legalisaption of drugs makes a very powerful case.
It is obviously ridiculous to
It is obviously ridiculous to try to blame the churches for the high crime rate. The crime rate has proved that doing it man's way has failed and it is time to try it God's way.
It is preposterous to argue that you should legalize all vice so government can make money. That would lead to a truly degenerate society as hard drugs and prostitution etc. are legalized.
It does not even make economic sense as the costs require to regulate and mitigate the effects would outweigh any gain. Of course it is impossible to quantify the social costs.
Rev. Nicholas Sykes, in his
Rev. Nicholas Sykes, in his desperation to lay bare the supposed "evils" of gambling did what most religious people do best: he majored on minor issues.
Case in point: While Sykes had somewhat of a point in saying that comparing "economic benefits to social costs; ...would be like comparing apples and oranges", all he accomplished by his babbling was to show his ignorance; he was nitpicking on a matter of mere semantics. A better framing of the issue would be to "weigh economic benefits versus social costs". I am sure that is what was meant but instead of accepting this, Sykes makes an issue of it.
Sykes himself claims to do such an analysis with each passing moment of his life. He must weigh (or compare) his actions in this temporal existence against the measure of God's expectations. Our human will versus the eternal majesty of the Godhead are indeed like "apples and oranges". But the subjective measurement or "comparison" is not incorrect, inconsistent or impossible.
Rev. Sykes was of course
Rev. Sykes was of course correct. The only sociologist on the panel (who happened to be supporting casino gambling if it excluded locals) agreed with him on the point that social costs are not measurable in the same way as economic benefits.
Ironically, it is your post that is truly babbling with irrelevance about human will versus the eternal majesty of the Godhead. But since you are on the subject, the issue of sin and falling short of God's glory is something that I would expect that Sykes and every Christian clergyman is fully aware of. We can never measure up to God's standards and therefore never earn salvation. That is what grace is about.
Post new comment