The worst kind of legislation on gambling

May 27, 2015

Republican State Sen. Del Marsh introduced what has to be the worst piece of gambling-related legislation in the history of Alabama in early May. Marsh, who is president pro tempore of the Alabama Senate, flip-flopped on what observers thought were principled stands against legalized gambling and became its chief proponent. 
More importantly, Marsh is using the power of his office to lead efforts to have Alabama legalize a state lottery, approve full-blown casinos and form a compact with the Poarch Band of Creek Indians that would make American Indian gambling activities a permanent part of state life. 
Any one of these proposals is controversial by itself. That all would be considered at the same time would have been inconceivable until Marsh’s surprising and disappointing announcement. 
The catalyst for the proposal is Alabama’s economic crunch. State government is underfunded and has been for years. The Legislature has filled the income gap with borrowing and one-time funds, but those sources have been exhausted. 
With no other place to turn Gov. Robert Bentley proposed increasing certain taxes but Marsh and other legislators are so scared of any new taxes that the governor’s proposals could not even get a committee hearing until the legislative session was more than half over. 
Financial burden
Instead Marsh and others purpose gambling as the fix for the revenue shortfall. They would prefer to balance the budget on the backs of those least able to pay rather than adopt a fair and just tax system. Lotteries place the financial burden on the backs of poor and working class people rather than on capital and corporations. 
Pulitzer Prize-winning tax reporter David Cay Johnston points out that 11 states already raise more money per person through lotteries than they raise through corporate income taxes. That is not the direction Alabama should go. 
Economist Richard D. Wolff added, “Simply put, lotteries take the most from those who can least afford it. Instead of taking those most able to pay, state leaders use lotteries to disguise a regressive tax that falls on the middle and even more on the poor.” 
For example Lenoir County, N.C., is one of that state’s more economically depressed areas with 23.5 percent of the population living under the poverty line. Yet in 2010 enough scratch-off and lottery tickets were sold to account for $423.92 worth of purchases for every adult in the county. That is more than twice the state average of $200.11. 
The California Budget Project reported that in 2007 “the poor, nonwhite, urban and less educated spend a higher portion of their income on the lottery than other demographics.” 
A 2008 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis found “a large portion of lottery profits come from people who receive some financial subsidy from the government, suggesting the lottery profits from those with the least disposable income.” 
One out of 4 children in Alabama already live in food insecure homes. One in five seniors in our state is food insecure. Poverty is above the national average. Surely the state Legislature can find a better policy to solve the state’s financial woes than to prey on these people. 
A state-sponsored lottery is one of the cruelest and most callous proposals the Legislature could make. A study by the Opinion Research Corporation for the Consumer Federation of America and the Financial Planning Association found that 38 percent of those earning less than $25,000 annually believed the lottery is the solution to accumulating wealth. Perhaps that is why David Just, behavioral economics expert and director of graduate studies at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., said, “We find there are big jumps in lottery purchases when the poverty rate increases, when unemployment increases or when people enroll (in) welfare.” 
Unlikely odds
When the odds of winning a Powerball jackpot, according to The Mathematical Association of America, is one in 175 million, is that what state government should be promoting?
Should state government be like a sideshow huckster trying to separate hard-earned paychecks from its citizens? Should Alabama’s government encourage get-rich-quick schemes over the proven disciplines of work, thrift and responsibility? 
And what could be more callous than the state’s powerful decision makers purposely manipulating the vulnerable of society in order to avoid having to shoulder a fair and just portion of the expense of government? 
The casino proposal is equally misguided. Casino gambling cannibalizes the economy. That is because casinos divert spending that would have gone to buy cars, clothes, food and other goods and services. 
A year ago when the New Hampshire Legislature rejected building a casino in the Granite State, Paul Davies, the Maggie Walker fellow at the Institute for American Values, said, “Public policy built around inducing residents to gamble away their hard-earned money is a bad way to fund the government.” We agree.
Promises of gambling income are always exaggerated. In 2009, Ohio residents were told four proposed casinos would generate $1.9 billion in annual tax revenue for the state. The actual revenue for the first year was $839 million — off by more than $1 billion. That is a big “oops.”
That says nothing about the social problems ranging from increased criminal activity to suicides. In Gulfport, Miss., suicides skyrocketed 213 percent in the first two years after casinos opened there. In nearby Biloxi, suicides increased 1,000 percent in the first year alone. 
Why would Alabama want to start something that is declining nationwide? In Atlantic City gambling revenues are down more than 47 percent since 2006. Casinos are closing. Others are filing bankruptcy. In Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, Louisiana and other places the reports are the same — gambling revenue is declining with no stop in sight.
Marsh’s bill also places new casinos at the Birmingham Race Course, VictoryLand in Shorter, Greenetrack in Eutaw and the Mobile Greyhound Park. At least three of these facilities have been convicted of breaking Alabama gambling laws, some multiple times. Why would the state reward these lawbreakers with a casino site even if the proposal were adopted? Rewarding lawbreakers with casinos would be the wrong signal to send about the results of illegal conduct.
Sen. Marsh’s proposals are based on flawed economics. They are based on bad public policies and are unworthy of responsible legislative leadership like he has provided in the past. Senate Bill 453 embodies values contrary to the Christian faith. This bill is a threat to the welfare of the state of Alabama and should be soundly defeated.

Originally published here.

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24