Pondering Pastor

The New Slots Polls

Posted by Pr. Lee Hudson, director, Lutheran Office on Public Policy/MD

Why are opponents annoyed, but not discouraged by the Post and Sun surveys that seem to show strong support for slots among Marylanders? Mostly because the poll results didn’t tell us anything new.

Two Governors have spent five years using “crisis,” “slots,” and “free money” in the same sentences. It’s hardly surprising that people have trouble with the facts. It’s also a testament to the power campaign cash has to shape public discourse.

Opponents are annoyed that their corresponding lack of money means proponents get free press that also is fact- and debate free. The most annoying thing about the polls isn’t that the results were inconvenient. It’s that confusion is a preferred policy because it works.

Had the polls asked whether Marylanders support slots if they aren’t an alternative to revenues (which is the case) the results would have been different. There is no ground swell for slots except when the State executive skillfully proposes them as revenue.

When the polls actually ask, as the recent ones did, whether support for slots means willingness to accept them into the local community, the answer remains “no.” That question has been the impediment to slots so far. There’s support for slots until the locations are named. Support then turns to controversy. The current Governor has maneuvered around this issue by leaving the site question for another time and another process.

What the polls showed is that Marylanders prefer slots to taxes. We didn’t need a poll to tell us that. That slots aren’t a substitute for taxes hasn’t been brought up. The poll results show that Marylanders like slots more than a sales tax increase. But the one certainty is that there will be a sales tax increase of some kind no matter what else is or isn’t done. That’s because the sales tax will actually raise new revenue, and the largest amount of it. Slots won’t raise any.

(more follows)

(more…)

UPDATE: VERDICT IS IN (click)

The lawsuit against Westboro Baptist Church in U.S. District Court in Baltimore has ended it’s first week. The civil trial before a jury is expected to last until November 1. News reports have been rather spotty this week.

At issue is whether or not the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church during the funeral service for Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder intentionally inflicted emotional distress on his father, Albert Snyder and whether or not they violated a private funeral service.

I’m not able to glean anything new out of the reported testimony this week.

Members of Westboro Baptist Church testified that the Snyders were not able to see the demonstration, that they had complied completely with law enforcement restrictions on the location for their demonstrations (1000 feet away), and that their right to free speech in this country and their God-given mandate for calling this nation to repentance should not be denied.

Albert Snyder declared that Westboro Baptist Church made the funeral a media circus.

The Baltimore Sun reported on Wednesday …

U.S. District Judge Richard D. Bennett instructed jurors at the start of testimony Tuesday that the First Amendment protection of free speech has limits, including vulgar, offensive and shocking statements. Bennett said the jurors must decide “whether the defendant’s actions would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, whether they were extreme and outrageous, and whether these actions were so offensive and shocking as to not be entitled to First Amendment protection.”

The fireworks many are looking for (again from the Baltimore Sun) …

The church’s founder and pastor, Fred Phelps, took the stand after Snyder and prompted a strong admonition from [Judge] Bennett when the pastor said he had not considered whether children would see a sign carried by protesters with the words “Semper Fi Fags” and two stick figures that appeared to be engaged in sodomy.

“No, it’s an irrelevancy,” Phelps said.

“Just answer the question, sir. Don’t determine what’s relevant or not relevant. You just answer the question,” Bennett said.

I’m convinced that the attitudes displayed by members of Westboro Baptist Church will not help their cause, but I believe that they may very likely prevail in this case. I’ll be watching for the verdict.

Pondering Pastor

From an AP Article in the New York Times, October 26, 2007:

Several Oklahoma lawmakers plan to return copies of the Koran to a state panel on diversity after a lawmaker claimed the Muslim holy book condones the killing of innocent people. The books were given to Oklahoma’s 149 senators and representatives by the panel, the Governor’s Ethnic American Advisory Council. At least 24 legislators, including Representative Rex Duncan, a Republican, have notified the panel they will return the gift. Marjaneh Seirafi-Pour, chairwoman of the council and a Muslim, denounced Mr. Duncan’s assessment of Islam. “I know he referred to Islam as an ideology,” Ms. Seirafi-Pour said. “That is not a fact. It is a religion. It is very peaceful, very inclusive.”

Another article I read in the Des Moines Register said that Duncan researched the Koran (Qu’ran) on the internet.

I’d suggest that Mr. Duncan also return his copy of the Holy Bible. This Holy Book also advocates killing of people. Granted, the Holy Bible does not advocate killing innocent people. Consider the following:

• In Exodus 19: Moses is told to tell the people that anyone who touches Mt. Sinai shall be put to death.
• In Exodus 21: anyone who strikes a mother or father shall be put to death.
• In Exodus 21: whoever curses mother or father shall be put to death. (Also Leviticus 20)
• In Exodus 21: if your ox has gored a human before, and you do not control the animal, and it kills someone, you shall be put to death … along with the animal.
• In Exodus 31: anyone who works on the Sabbath shall be put to death.
• In Leviticus 19: if a man has sexual relations with a slave woman, both are to be put to death.
• In Leviticus 20: if a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both shall be put to death.
• In Leviticus 20: if a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both shall be put to death.
• In Leviticus 20: if a man has sexual relations with another man, both shall be put to death
• In Leviticus 20: a medium or wizard shall be put to death.
• In Leviticus 24: anyone who blasphemes shall be put to death.
• In Numbers: any outsider who approaches the tent of the tabernacle shall be put to death.
• In Deuteronomy: any prophet who divines by dreams shall be put to death

That’s all “Old Testament” stuff? How about the words of Jesus? While not killing, this is something from the mouth of Jesus that Mr. Duncan’s constituents certainly would not approve of.

• Matthew 10: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”

Mr. Duncan and the Oklahoma lawmakers need to understand that it is a good thing to be familiar with the teachings of a wide variety of religions, Islam included. Just as in the Bible there is the important matter of interpretation, so too with the Qur’an. Too bad they can’t step up and learn something about this particular faith finding considerable adherents across our nation … including Oklahoma.

The reality is any faith making exclusive claims provides significant challenges within a multicultural society. It is the job of those elected to represent the people to be able to represent all citizens. One cannot do that without learning something about those who are different from yourself.

Am I selling out? I’m a Christian pastor. I believe that Jesus is Lord. No, I’m not selling out. I learn about Islam so that I’m not engaged in stereotype dialogue and can actually engage in helpful and important conversation with people who hold a different faith. The bar is even higher for elected representatives.

Pondering Pastor