I covered a special town meeting last night for the law firm. The topic: A proposed casino on the south side of town. Last night was public comment night. About 25 people stood up and voiced their opinion: some for, some against, some with questions. All in all, a good and civil evening. I was puzzled, though, by a few fundamentalist-types who stood up and said the Bible condemns gambling and that God forbids it (one said God puts it right up there with rape and murder).
Can anyone tell me: Where do they get this stuff? I simply can't find any condemnation of gambling in the good book, with the exception of perhaps an oh-so tenuous argument that, since Roman soldiers threw lots for Jesus' cloak, it's impliedly forbidden. I know about the sin of greed, sure, but that's not the same as God condemning gambling. I know gambling can lead to problems, but that doesn't mean the Bible classifies it as a sin.
When I hear a theological position I disagree with, I can normally go to the Bible, read the passage(s) that the other side is relying upon, and say, "Okay, I still disagree, but I see where they're coming from." On this, I can't even do that, and I'm very puzzled. If anyone can shed some light on this cocksure attitude that the Bible condemns gambling, please post it in the comments.
Because of the late night, I don't have much. Just an offering from the notebooks:
Premise: Legislation should be limited to what is necessary for outward order and decency.
This raises the issue of “proximity.” When does an act hurt outward order and decency, and (more important) when does the state need to stop it? I have no doubt that sexual immorality hurts the fabric of society, even when the immorality takes place in private. But I don't want the state in the bedroom.
Can the state do anything to prevent inner disorder and indecency? I doubt it. What can the state do to help me with my temper? Nothing, and I'd be offended (and scared) if it thought it could. The same applies to any passion, including the sexual (though the sexual needs special consideration, since it's so strong).
The state can only help promote social power. Still questioning: Can it do that affirmatively at all? Or can it only get out of the way?
