No – because he did not, himself, suffer from any of the “many social problems linked to gambling.” He is perfectly free to decry those problems and still gamble, because he doesn’t have those problems.
If he had said, ‘Gambling causes these problems,’ then you’d have a point. But he condemned other problems, which YOU point out are linked to gambling. BUT NIT IN HIS CASE.
Conclusion: sanctimonious jerk. But not a hypocrite.
Yes, it’s very convenient. It suggests that Bennett does not disapprove of gambling, and is not a hypocrite.
So what? The mere fact that he’s never mentioned it is sufficient. You (or Kinsley) can’t just pencil it in when convenient.
Bennett is a co-director of Empower America, not the King. He works with other people and does not unilaterally set the agenda for the organization.
I’m sure he would concede that SOME gambling is harmful, just as I do. But he would say that his own gambling is not harmful… just as I say MY own gambling is not harmful.
Here again we see the problem. He “apparently” thinks. Because, lacking any of Bennett’s own words to convict him of hypocrisy, Kinsley must use what Kinsley thinks Bennnett thinks.
Either Bill Bennett believes that his own gambling fosters an atmosphere of toleration that is disastrous to less well-grounded problem gamblers, or he doesn’t. In either case, given the cited attitude re pot smoking, he is being hypocritical. The hypocrisy is worse in the former case (he believes that he’s doing social harm, but doesn’t give a damn) than in the latter (he constructs an anti-pot argument that he selectively refuses to apply to the anti-gambling case, for no better reason than that gambling is his personally preferred vice). Kinsley does him the favor of assuming the lesser of the two evils.
That is probably true (I am not familiar enough with the group to say), but I do believe that if the group was against something that Bennett felt should be legal, that the principled thing to do is to speak out. I think this is where the accusation of hypocrisy is probably closest to being accurate, though I’ll have to ponder on it to decide if it fits the bill precisely enough for me. I think it might.
CITE? I used to watch Jimmy Swaggart constantly (a traffic accident I couldn’t turn away from [and for pointers when I was 18 and preaching, but that’s another story]) and I never once heard him mention prostitution. Fags? Yep. Drugs? Constantly. Democrats? You betcha. But never once did I hear him preach a sermon on or make passing reference to prostitution. I’d love to see what you come up with.
Unfortunately, Swaggert’s hey-day was pre-Internet. But I have a book called “The Agony of Deceit,” by Mike Horton. He details Swaggert’s attack on Marvin Gorman. At one point Swaggert calls Gorman a whoremonger.
Now, I agree this is possibly meant just to criticize Gorman’s adultery, not specifically prostitution. If that’s your interpretation, then I withdraw the characterization of Swaggert as criticizing prostitution… but he’s STILL a hypocrite for criticizing adultery. Not only Gorman’s affair - which would indirectly be Swaggert’s own undoing - but Bakker’s affair was grist for Swaggert’s rhetorical mill, with Swaggert calling Bakker a “cancer on the body of Christ” for his wrongdoing.
Gambling is actually a form of worship and should be encouraged. I mean the whole Pascal’s Wager thing shows that choosing a religion is taking a bet you’ve picked the right diety anyway.
So instead a Vegas or Atlantic City junket being a vice by supporting organized crime, a greedy (covetous) endeavor to gain unearned money, a lazy (slothful) effort to get something for nothing and an uncharitable waste of resources; it is actually a Virtuous way of celebrating the Divine Game of Chance.
So let’s review what we know. I post a perfectly fine OP. People respond. Then someone posts a list of people he feels are hypocrites. Bricker responds, and I defend. A pile-on ensues, the members of which agree that the situation is quite clear and I am foolish to have defended Sampiro’s statement. Then, a pile on begins showing that things are not as clearly defined as Rick wishes they were, and that my claim was not so indefensible. We are back to square one. Oh, and while it is true that all Christians are told not to try and get rich quick, Homebrew can often be quite funny, whether I like it or not.
Hello, my name is Craig Spence , and I am making this Public Service Announcement to tell you about a problem that affect millions of Americans. Unwanted Pregnancies.
Perhaps that is one way to put 8 million dollars in perspective: Fifty 5-dollar tubs of ice cream a night, from birth till death, every single day, is about eight million dollars.
Now, it is all his money, and he is entitled to do what he wants with it. However, the sheer volume of money spent in this manner, when contrasted against his supposed support of moderation and the like, is somewhat jarring.
Scott, the post that began the pile-on (#9) was a great example of two of your problems at SDMB. You made a statement about Christianity and gambling that displays to all your ignorance of the position of some very large Christian denominations on gambling (the Roman Catholic Church, for example, to which Bennett belongs). You then made a false claim about the content of a book you haven’t read, which was refuted by someone who had read it. Others who had actual knowledge of the content of the book then engaged Bricker in a discussion of whether Bennett might be a hypocrite based on the virtues book. None of the ensuing argument appears to have validated anything you said in post #9. You may have improved your spelling and punctuation, but you still can’t read and you still can’t think.
P.S - Your attempt to recap a discussion that everyone here understands more clearly than you do is a familiar plaiditude and is still annoying without the spelling and punctuation errors.
One which you don’t even hint at, beyond intimating perhaps that there’s a difference between “it’s *his * money” and “it’s *his * brain cells”.
The “principled distinction” would seem to be that Bennett, the most prominent morality scold among the right-Republican Pharisee segment (self-appointed perhaps, but accepted anyway) only personally engages in one of those things.
Hypocrisy is bad, obviously. But the hypocritical may not realize it. Rationalizing a defense of hypocrisy (see your “argument” above) just might be worse, though, since it’s done in full knowledge of the hypocrisy. But Bennett’s log-vs.-mote act is even worse than that, especially if it’s conscious and done primarily for money and ego-stroking, which it does seem to be. His claim to fame is from his preaching about the general attitude of permissiveness and lack of moral standards he claims to be present in our modern society. On what *principled * basis can gambling be excluded from the list but other vices not?
