The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission | Don’t Let Congress Go Home Without Passing Internet Gambling Legislation | Comments

Comment 1

Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:26:51 CST

Why? Why? Why? Why would you assume that the presence of online gambling sites implies that there is the “destructive power of gambling addiction” running through America? And why would you use that assumption to back a bill which removes a joyous leisure activity from the grasp of millions of responsible Americans?

Let me make my personal view on this clear:
-- I play online poker
-- I enjoy online poker
-- I do not gamble money that would endanger the health and welfare of my family
-- I am a churchgoer
-- I give freely to the church and many other charities

You may enjoy taking your family down to the river’s edge on a Sunday afternoon, but I’m not supporting a ban on THAT activity because of the possibility that one of your family members may slip on a rock and drown at the river’s edge.

Why would you make similar assumptions about my leisure activities? I cannot agree with your organization’s conclusions about this bill.

Sincerely,
Scott Morrison

Comment 2

Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:10:50 CST

Further reading on the subject of (gambling, including poker) can be found here.

Simply because a church goer may engage in a particular behavior, doesn’t make it ‘right’ or OK, or even good for our communities. The question, rather, is should a church goer (presumably a Christian) engage in that activity?

Our understanding is that gambling is contrary to a great many biblical principles and the Christian life.

In addition to being biblically unsound, it’s irresponsible economic behavior and contrary to building wealth.

Comment 3

Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:04:10 CST

I don’t disagree that there is a “destructive power of gambling addiction.” I would be interested to hear from those who beleive that there should be legislation against this but who do NOT beleive that we should also ban the “destructive power of (alcohol, cigarettes, pornography, big mac) addiction.” What is the logic behind the argument that government should regulate one and not the others?