Follow us on Facebook

Recommend this article to your friends.

• Print
• Email

According to an anti-gambling group based in Washington DC, Newt Gingrich worked in 1996 to remove subpoena power from a government commission assigned to investigate gambling.

In this 1996 Washington Post article posted by Stop Predatory Gambling, Gingrich is quoted as favoring the removal of subpoena power from a commission being considered at the time.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) has recommended a substantial weakening of a bill to examine the runaway growth of legalized gambling in America.

Speaking Monday at a fund-raiser in a Las Vegas casino, where he raised $70,000 for the reelection campaign of freshman Rep. John Ensign (R-Nev.), Gingrich said that a House bill to create a federal gambling commission should be modified so that the commission does not have the power to issue subpoenas.

Note where Gingrich made his statement about the gambling commission - at a fundraiser in a casino.

According to a 1996 report in the Las Vegas Sun, Gingrich opposed a strong commission which led to some political fallout with a group he is now courting – religious conservatives.

Gingrich’s position has angered religious anti-gaming advocates who believe the gaming industry is calling the shots in Washington, D.C.

Methodist Minister Thomas Grey, executive director of the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, warned that efforts by Gingrich or other Republicans to water down the gaming commission bill could help Democratic President Clinton secure the “family values” vote in November.

“This could create great problems for Republicans because they’re making this a political issue,” Grey said. “This is a public relations disaster for these people.”

This Chicago Tribune report says Gingrich was the last obstacle of a tougher bill with power to get information via subpoena.

All of this should raise questions for Gingrich given that his non-profit organizations and his campaign have been underwritten by Sheldon Adelson, who runs one of the largest gambling operations in the world. The $5 million Adelson donated before the South Carolina primary to a political action committee dedicated to Gingrich was important in Gingrich's come from behind win that state's primary. Earlier this week, Adelson's wife, Miriam, added another $5 million  to the PAC. Adelson has donated over $7 million to Gingrich's organization since the mid-1990s.

Christians have long condemned gambling as a particularly cruel vice since it preys upon greed and can become compulsive. In 1997, the American Family Association’s journal wrote about the House gambling commission and mentioned Gingrich’s role in appointing a person friendly to the gambling industry. He also eventually appointed Kay James, an anti-gambling member as well.

Gambling

Last year Congress voted to establish a nine-member federal commission to study the impact of gambling in America. Under that legislation, the President, the House and the Senate are each to choose three members. Almost $500 billion is wagered annually producing over $40 billion in profits for the gambling industry, countless ruined lives and families, political corruption, and increased crime. The Washington Post recently editorialized that the “big-money gamblers are betting a bundle on President Clinton to do their bidding” and “stack” the commission with those favorable to the gambling interests. According to the Post, on the President’s short list are many with close ties to the gambling industry, including Bill Bible, chairman of the Nevada Gaming Control Board. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA) has already used one of his two choices to appoint the chairman and CEO of a Las Vegas casino company. House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-MO), a recipient of big gambling bucks, who gets one selection, favors the head of a union representing casino employees, the Post reports. Thus, the President’s three picks may determine the outcome of the commission’s work. He could make such a positive impact on America if he would only appoint three people with sound Judeo-Christian values and no ties to the gambling industry. Then we may learn the true impact of widespread gambling on America, and then states and communities may have some ammunition against the gambling industry as it seeks to expand. Will the President do the right thing? Don’t bet on it.

The AFA article criticizes Richard Gephardt for taking “big gambling bucks” and yet now Don Wildmon, founder of the AFA, is a supporter of Gingrich. 

Are “big gambling bucks” OK now?

Follow us on Facebook

Recommend this article to your friends.

• Print
• Email

Early in January, Bryan Fischer, issues analyst with the American Family Association, threw his support behind the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS. On his daily talk show, Fischer hosted University of California, Berkeley professor Peter Duesberg, who is the principal proponent of the theory that HIV is a harmless virus and that AIDS is the result of lifestyle choices, such as drug use and promiscuity, which weaken the immune system. Duesberg says that gay men are at special risk since they use drugs and engage in casual sex more so than other groups.

In a column on the AFA website, Fischer wrote:

So what is the cause of what we know as AIDS? What is the cause of this condition that is killing people? Duesberg’s answer can be found in one word: drugs.

And specifically, drug use connected with the kind of sex that is far too common in the homosexual community. While the average heterosexual has somewhere between seven to 14 sexual partners in a lifetime, it is not uncommon for homosexuals to have hundreds, even thousands, of sexual partners. 

By partnering with Duesberg, Fischer brought AIDS denialism closer to the mainstream of evangelicalism. In response, Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren and his wife Kay recently issued a statement to me about Fischer’s and Duesberg’s denial of the HIV-AIDS link. Among evangelicals, the Warrens have been pioneers in outreach to AIDS victims. The Warrens' statement is powerful and decisive. It is reproduced here in full:

Since AIDS was first discovered in 1981, 30 years of non-stop scientific research by the US military, the medical community, our government, and by every international health organization has proven over and over, with countless irrefutable results, that ONLY people with HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) develop AIDS. To imply the disease is caused by anything besides HIV is quack science, like claiming the earth is flat, or the moon is made of cheese. Since 1985, when the virus that creates AIDS was isolated, every doctor on the planet, except Peter Duesberg, has known that HIV is the only cause of AIDS.

Duesberg’s denial of the entire body of research, and his rejection of thousands of scientific trials and papers, would be laughable if millions of lives weren’t at stake. But his view is deadly.  Unfortunately, Duesberg convinced some people in Africa that HIV was not the cause of AIDS and as a result many people there needlessly became infected with the virus, and some have subsequently suffered and died.

It is frustrating – and frightening – for those of us in AIDS ministry to see someone like Dr. Duesberg play to people’s bias and prejudices. For the past eight years we have worked with thousands of churches around the world and in America who have ministries to those infected and affected by AIDS. No one deserves this illness, and we must not ignore those among us who are infected or affected by HIV and AIDS. There are numerous ways to acquire the virus – sexual activity, blood transfusions, being born to an HIV positive mother, dirty needles – but what matters isn’t  how a person became infected as much as how we will respond. People with living with the virus are people that Jesus created, loves, and died for. Jesus’ story of the Good Samaritan teaches us that when you find someone bleeding on the side of the road, you don’t say “Was it your fault?” You just help them in love!

Let’s be very careful about what reality we deny; lives are at stake.

When the Warrens write that Duesberg convinced some in Africa that HIV and AIDS were not related, they are referring to the period of AIDS denial in South Africa from 2000 to 2005. In 2000, Duesberg was invited by South African President Thabo Mbeki to provide advice on AIDS policy. Subsequently, the South African government displayed antagonism toward AIDS treatment and prevention programs which involved anti-retro viral drugs (ARVs). Nicolo Nattrass, writing in African Affairs, said that President Mbeki questioned the science behind the epidemic. However, the consequences were devastating. According to a Harvard University press release and a study from the journal African Affairs, over 330,000 deaths could have been prevented if ARVs had been used. The Harvard release, citing a 2008 study, added that 35,000 babies were born with HIV due to failure to implement appropriate drug based prevention programs.

If anything, the African epidemic provides evidence counter to Duesberg’s theory. The epidemic there is driven by heterosexual activity. The stereotype about gay men spreading HIV via lots of drugs and sex is not applicable there.

Given what is at stake, the Warrens' statement is important. The American Family Association has a sizable audience which includes GOP presidential candidates. Confusion over something as basic as what causes AIDS could become a barrier to the progress made in ministry and treatment for those with HIV/AIDS. As Rev. and Mrs. Warren remind us, lives are at stake.

Follow us on Facebook

Recommend this article to your friends.

• Print
• Email

Given the decision-making power of Santa Claus on the matter of gifts, my children have always made sure they leave Mr. Claus some seriously good cookies on Christmas Eve. However, most children don't know that there is much more to the real Saint Nick than toys and cookies. In addition to being generous, the jolly fellow could easily be considered the patron saint of purity.

Saint Nicholas lived early in the fourth century in what is now Turkey. Orphaned as a young boy, he was left with substantial financial means by his parents. He used this inheritance to benefit others, especially children. Deeply religious, Nicholas became the Bishop of Myra in Turkey and played an important leadership role in the church. Called the Wonderworker by his peers, he was well known for his generosity to children, hence his association with the legend of Santa Claus. The story of a benevolent soul giving gifts to children is a part of many cultures with many names. Saint Nick as another name for Santa Claus persists to this day.

Saint Nicholas is a patron saint of virgins. In the Catholic tradition, a patron saint is one who prays to God on behalf of a petitioner. So, if one wants to remain chaste, one prays to Saint Nicholas who will then lift up the petitioner in spiritual prayer to God. As an aside, Saint Nck's patronage may explain at least one of the criteria for being in either the naughty or nice category when he checks and rechecks his list. But I digress. There is more to this story.

Legend has it that Saint Nicholas became aware of a desperately poor parishioner having three daughters with no dowry to recommend them for marriage. The hapless father had planned to sell them into prostitution to provide some means of support. By night, Saint Nicholas secretly brought bags of gold on three separate occasions to the man's home. These generous visitations provided sufficient means for the father to call off his loathsome plan. On the third visit to deliver the gift, Nicholas was caught in the act of generosity by the grateful father.

Many make the Santa Claus-like association of this story to Saint Nicholas the gift giver. I see an additional angle. For reasons that often involve money, women today have few benefactors, few Saint Nicks. Bob Dylan sang truly two decades ago that today's culture seems to promote "old men turning young daughters into whores." A look at any magazine rack will tell you that there is a market for flesh and the demographic is predominantly male. Research company TopTenReviews reported in 2010 that the pornography market was a 97 billion industry worldwide. In 2008, the market, just for cell phone porn, hit 2.2 billion. That is a lot of gold being used to degrade women rather than enhance their virtue.

Blending traditional gender roles has been little help here. Women today are not, nor should they be, as helpless as those three girls aided by Saint Nicholas. However, girls gone wild with sexual freedom most often leads to exploitation by men. I doubt we would see as much skin if there were no gawking male purchasers, eager to buy and sell innocence.

Harmful to both men and women, graphic sexuality, even the somewhat scaled down prime time variety, contributes to the overall commodification of sex. The American Psychological Association affirmed this in a 2007 report, finding that "the proliferation of sexualized images of girls and young women in advertising, merchandising, and media is harmful to girls' self-image and healthy development." Viewed through the eyes of the profiteer, sex is commerce and sexual purity is restraint of trade.

We need Saint Nicholas today. We need his gifts of chastity and modesty. Despite our frail state, we need more men and women who seek purity and fewer of those who would sell young people into the brothel of commercialism.

We need you today Saint Nicholas, the Wonderworker. Our sons and daughters need the good gifts of those who truly value their health and purity.

Follow us on Facebook

Recommend this article to your friends.

• Print
• Email

Of late, I have spoken to a variety of evangelical audiences about current research studies on sexual orientation. These presentations often lead to follow up conversations. One question I hear frequently is: Why haven't we seen anything about these studies?

Many of the questioners read evangelical publications and consume evangelical media. However, they don't know anything about the brain research of Ivanka Savic in Sweden (2005, 2006, 2008) or Adam Safron and colleagues at Northwestern University (since 2005). Their knowledge of biological research stops at Dean Hamer or Simon Levay (both published studies in the 1990s).  They are confident that there is no gay gene but they are unaware of the significant brain, perceptual and cognitive differences reported within the past six years by various researchers around the world.

Many evangelicals believe homosexuality is due to abuse. Some will say with confidence that gays are more likely to be abused than straights but they are unaware of the actual magnitudes of difference or of related factors that make abuse an unlikely factor in the cause of orientation. They have not heard of the 2009 study by Wilson and Widom which found no relationship between abuse and having a gay partner for men or women (men were more likely to have had at least one gay experience in their adult lives but not a recent partner). They are unaware of the 2010 work of Wells and colleagues in New Zealand that found 81.6% of gays reported no sexual abuse in their lives. On point, abuse is also higher among gender non-conforming children, whether gay or straight. Given that gays are more likely to be gender non-conforming in their histories, it seems likely that greater reports of abuse among gays relate in part to gender non-conformity, and have little, if anything, to do with cause of attractions for the majority of people who are same-sex attracted.

Many evangelicals I speak to think that change of orientation is pretty common and the evidence is being suppressed by the gay-friendly media. Some of them will point to the 2009 study of Exodus participants by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse. Some will even say that over half of their participants changed orientation. When I explain to them what change means in the context of the study (most retained attractions to the same-sex, even as they avoided same-sex behavior), they are surprised. Then I point out a study, also by Mark Yarhouse, which found no change in orientation for men and women in mixed orientation marriages. Some ask why that study was not reported in the media. I wonder the same thing.

I could be wrong but I don't think any of the studies to which I have referred here have been reported in the Christian press (other than some of my blog posts here on Crosswalk). The Jones and Yarhouse study was reported widely, but the Yarhouse study showing no change among sexual minorities in mixed orientation couples - which is more recent - was not reported anywhere. 

Many evangelicals get their information about sexual orientation from the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) through groups like Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Exodus International, etc. They also get information from Christian media. However, the most recent and significant studies on sexual orientation are not reported in these places. No wonder most evangelicals approach sexual orientation with a 1990s mindset. It is as if the evangelical world is in blackout mode when it comes to current studies on sexual orientation.

NARTH - a group of mostly lay people but which claims to be a scientific group - has no information on the 2008 study by Ivanka Savic and Per Lindstrom showing clear structural differences in the brain associated with sexual orientation differences. Shouldn't a scientific organization which claims to be interested in the science of sexual orientation report information which is relevant to sexual orientation? That omission is only one of many.

I suspect the culture war is to blame. It cannot be because sexual orientation is not news. The issue comes up in the Presidential campaigns and other news all the time. However, evangelicals are quite unprepared to discuss this very current topic with the most recent and best scholarship. 

In my view, Christian media and organizations have a responsibility to provide this information to their readers and consumers. At issue is credibility and integrity, not doctrine. Christian teaching rests on theological research rather than social science. I am not suggesting that evangelicals should abandon their sexual ethics due to studies, but I am advocating that evangelicals be informed in order to understand the implications of their teaching in the real world. When politicians call homosexuality "a lifestyle" (as Rick Perry did recently), they are approaching the subject with a 1960s mindset. Evangelicals often earn their stereotype of being unscientific and uninformed. 

Christian media need to report studies that might seem like inconvenient truths. Given the backlog of unreported studies, there is plenty of material for their reporting.