Poker drawing more young people into addiction with gambling.

On Dec. 9, 2005, a young man robbed an Allentown, Pa. bank of $2,871. While bank robbery is not unusual, the identity of the perpetrator made this instance unique.

The robber, Greg Hogan, was a 19-year-old finance and accounting major at Lehigh University. He also was president of his sophomore class, a cellist in the university orchestra, an employee in the school chaplain's office and the son of a Baptist minister.

One friend summarized the collective shock for the school newspaper, The Brown and White: "Nobody expected Greg would do something like this."

What would cause a young man like Greg Hogan to rob a bank? The answer is simple but sad: gambling addiction. According to his lawyer, Hogan began playing online poker for fun and relaxation, and became addicted in the process of losing about $5,000.

He began borrowing money to cover his debts, debts that eventually caused him to hand a bank teller a note claiming he had a weapon and demanding money.

"This is one of the nicest kids I've ever met, but his gambling addiction led him to make a terrible, terrible mistake," his attorney said.

If youth gambling trends continue, more desperate teenagers may be in the news, and adults are helping the process along.

Until recent years, gambling was primarily an adult activity with a bit of shame attached. In many circles, that is no longer the case, and poker is where gambling often begins.

Poker, as you probably have noticed, is wildly popular. Poker tables are sold in many furniture stores. Party stores sell poker party décor. Poker sets for children are found in toy departments.

A search of an online toy store found more than 200 poker items, including a pink poker set for girls. Other discoveries include ladies' clothing adorned with gambling symbols and, the most shocking, gambling Christmas ornaments.

Many parents see poker not as real gambling with serious consequences, but as a way for their children to learn skills in strategy, mathematics and human behavior--all while tucked safely away in the family room.

The results of the 2005 National Annenberg Risk Survey of Youth suggest that these parents are naive. The annual survey of 900 young people, ages 14-22, found the monthly rate of card gambling had increased 20 percent between 2004-2005, with 2.9 million young people gambling on cards on a weekly basis.

While this trend primarily reflects increases among young men, 17.9 percent of the young women surveyed reported gambling on cards at least once a month.

The study also shows that gambling on cards often leads to gambling on the Internet; estimates are that 580,000 young people gamble on the Internet on a weekly basis.

Dan Romer, director of the survey, said, "The rising rate of card playing and overall gambling is worrisome. Young people are more prone to addiction, and increased exposure to gambling during the adolescent years increases the chances of developing gambling-related problems." Indeed, 54.5 percent of the young people surveyed reported at least one symptom of problem gambling.

Americans are not doing their young people any favors by making gambling more attractive and more available. Just ask Greg Hogan.

When you cut/paste, you should really link your source and give credit where it's due.

http://www.baptistmessenger.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=500&Itemid=32

The article is written in a very misleading way. First, it starts by describing someone's criminal (and really stupid) behavior. It then paints this criminal as a victim. I find that to be offensive. This kid is a criminal who justified robbing a bank in order to satisfy his gambling addiction. Do you really think that the presence of a casino figured into this greatly? Oh wait, no.. he was playing ONLINE poker..

So then you'd suggest we censor our internet like China or other communist countries? What a fantastic idea.

The editorial then goes to try and make the case that there is a "problem" by saying that 1 in 5 young people gamble at least once per month. That isn't really all that convincing. Sorry.

The editorial really bears its prejudice and hatred for freedom when it says things like "Until recent years, gambling was primarily an adult activity with a bit of shame attached."

Surely, you can find better anti-freedom articles than this.

Aren't almost all criminals described by people that knew them as a "good guy" and shocked that they would ever do something bad....Lot worse things youngsters could be doing than staying at a friends house playing poker for 10 bucks

But in an ideal world all teens would be at church functions every Fri and Sat night :kicking:

The interviewee was actually the guy's criminal defense lawyer, so yeah, slightly biased :)

What ever happened to personal repsonsibility? Why is there this need to blame something other that oneself when we make a bad decision?

What ever happened to personal repsonsibility? Why is there this need to blame something other that oneself when we make a bad decision?

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. Baptists, apparently, do not.

What, you guys just now learning that Oklahoma Baptists are biased?

Funny, but I remember when we voted on the lottery, I asked John Yeats, editor of the Baptist Messenger at the time, to give me Biblical proof backing their claims at the BGCO. They couldn't do it, and said it wasn't a Biblical issue, but a lifestyle issue. Huh?

Patrick, see the quote in my signature. I think it's on-point.

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. Baptists, apparently, do not.

So. You are saying Baptists are liberals? That is a laugh. Most are so conservative they make Rush Limbaugh look liberal.

Well look at the facts Anderson. They believe that the government ought to tell you whether you can or cannot gamble.

Believing that the government ought to control ever facet of others' behavior sure as heck ain't conservative.

Well look at the facts Anderson. They believe that the government ought to tell you whether you can or cannot gamble.

Believing that the government ought to control ever facet of others' behavior sure as heck ain't conservative.

So. You are saying most Baptists are liberals?

Sure. Why not? They support government intervention in our private lives, so in that respect, they may very well be liberals.

Sure. Why not? They support government intervention in our private lives, so in that respect, they may very well be liberals.
Actually, you are incorrect. You haven't got a clue. Are you a baptist? No, you are catholic. Baptists don't support goverment intervention in our private lives, any more than any other denomination.

I'm not a baptist, but I am very familiar with their doctrine. They are in no way close to being liberal, far from it. They are called liberal by some people, only because they don't see eye to eye on many things.

Reading many of these posts tells me that there are many baptist bashers. That's ok, because baptists have learned to turn the other cheek.

That's ok, because baptists have learned to turn the other cheek.
Now, that is funny. You really are a comedian... I knew not to take you seriously, but that's hysterical.

So. You are saying most Baptists are liberals?

Under the strict definition of "liberal", I'd agree. Most Baptists want government to intervene in people's lives, forcing religion on people through prayer in school, through mentions of religion in public policy matters, etc.

A conservative by definition wants small government and less intervention in people's lives.

Really, today's Democrats have more conservative tendancies than today's Republicans, for the most part. Dems are still big on programs for the poor which is liberal though.

Actually, you are incorrect. You haven't got a clue. Are you a baptist? No, you are catholic. Baptists don't support goverment intervention in our private lives, any more than any other denomination.

I'm not a baptist, but I am very familiar with their doctrine. They are in no way close to being liberal, far from it. They are called liberal by some people, only because they don't see eye to eye on many things.

Reading many of these posts tells me that there are many baptist bashers. That's ok, because baptists have learned to turn the other cheek.

Let's see.. Baptists are for alcohol prohibition.

They're for making alcohol illegal.

They want to make any sort of sex-industry act illegal (stripping, etc.)

They're for forcing kids to pray in schools

They're against the separation of church and state, so on and so forth.

More intervention, larger government, etc. Yes, that tends to make them liberal.

You might be uncomfortable with that word, but it's no less true.

Southern Baptists = The Fun Police :tweeted:

Let's see.. Baptists are for alcohol prohibition.

They're for making alcohol illegal.

They want to make any sort of sex-industry act illegal (stripping, etc.)

They're for forcing kids to pray in schools

They're against the separation of church and state, so on and so forth.

More intervention, larger government, etc. Yes, that tends to make them liberal.

You might be uncomfortable with that word, but it's no less true.

Alcohol consumption and sales. More conservatives beleive in prohibition than liberals, however, this one is not a good example because of the stereotype beer guzzling redneck conservative.

The adult entertainment industry. Very right wingers want the entire industry criminalized. Liberals (for the most part) want it legalized and regulated.

Liberals (again, for the most part) are suers when it comes to religious rights. Reports surface frequently about some bleeding heart suing over the ten commandments or something. That "something" includes prayer in school (which you already have. It is called SILENT prayer).

I have seen liberals use Churhes for campaign headquarters. That is NOT seperation of Church and State.

Larger "Government." Liberals hand bums money like it was water. When that bum crosses the street and walks into the corner bar instead of the clothing store or a job service, the liberals take a blind eye.

What YOU described may be typical a Baptist, however, it is NOT liberal.

Alcohol consumption and sales. More conservatives beleive in prohibition than liberals, however, this one is not a good example because of the stereotype beer guzzling redneck conservative.

The adult entertainment industry. Very right wingers want the entire industry criminalized. Liberals (for the most part) want it legalized and regulated.

Liberals (again, for the most part) are suers when it comes to religious rights. Reports surface frequently about some bleeding heart suing over the ten commandments or something. That "something" includes prayer in school (which you already have. It is called SILENT prayer).

I have seen liberals use Churhes for campaign headquarters. That is NOT seperation of Church and State.

Larger "Government." Liberals hand bums money like it was water. When that bum crosses the street and walks into the corner bar instead of the clothing store or a job service, the liberals take a blind eye.

What YOU described may be typical a Baptist, however, it is NOT liberal. Which clearly demonstrates you do not know the true definition of liberal versus conservative. You've accepted the propagandized re-defining of these terms with little consideration for accuracy.

Alcohol consumption and sales. More conservatives beleive in prohibition than liberals, however, this one is not a good example because of the stereotype beer guzzling redneck conservative.

Which are you?


The adult entertainment industry. Very right wingers want the entire industry criminalized. Liberals (for the most part) want it legalized and regulated.

Which is more intrusive/controlling?


Liberals (again, for the most part) are suers when it comes to religious rights. Reports surface frequently about some bleeding heart suing over the ten commandments or something. That "something" includes prayer in school (which you already have. It is called SILENT prayer).

Ah, so the "liberal" as you call it is wanting to have the government *not* do something, while the "conservative" is wanting the government *to* do something. Got it. So far, your distinctions make soooo much sense:congrats:


I have seen liberals use Churhes for campaign headquarters. That is NOT seperation of Church and State.

The Christian Coalition -- 'nuff said.


Larger "Government." Liberals hand bums money like it was water. When that bum crosses the street and walks into the corner bar instead of the clothing store or a job service, the liberals take a blind eye.

You're sure about that? Most "conservatives" (myself included) say "screw the bum, he's not beneffiting society in any way, until he decides to, assuming he's of sound mind and body, let him starve." At least I have the intellectual integrity to admit that the Bible would definitely disagree with me on this point. I'm not so sure where Jesus would fall on government mandated "giving," but I am positive that he'd most likely side with the liberals as to health and human services type programs (which is one of the inconsistancies I find the "religious right" to have which is the most amusing).


What YOU described may be typical a Baptist, however, it is NOT liberal.

Then you don't know what a liberal is.

^ Exactly.

Sure. Why not? They support government intervention in our private lives, so in that respect, they may very well be liberals.

That is the silliest comment I've heard all day. What are you smoking?

Which clearly demonstrates you do not know the true definition of liberal versus conservative. You've accepted the propagandized re-defining of these terms with little consideration for accuracy.

That's because you haven't recognized that the definitions of conservative and liberal have changed with societyin the 21st century. The definitions aren't what they were in your parents' generation. Conservative now means low taxes, Christian, national security. Liberal means gays, welfare, anything goes, high taxes.

That is the silliest comment I've heard all day. What are you smoking?

Why is the comment silly? Liberals want government control in our everyday lives. Wantint to reach into people's lives and force them not to gamble is interference. If liberals are in favor of bigger government and more regulation whil conservatives are against regulation and for the free market, etc., which is which here?

Christian conservatives of course have a lot of very strange positions which don't necessarily jive with their religious beliefs. For example, most are against gambling because it's against their religion, Jesus wouldn't like it, etc.

How would Jesus feel about torturing prisoners of war?

Why is the comment silly? Liberals want government control in our everyday lives. Wantint to reach into people's lives and force them not to gamble is interference. If liberals are in favor of bigger government and more regulation whil conservatives are against regulation and for the free market, etc., which is which here?

Christian conservatives of course have a lot of very strange positions which don't necessarily jive with their religious beliefs. For example, most are against gambling because it's against their religion, Jesus wouldn't like it, etc.

How would Jesus feel about torturing prisoners of war?

You are operating off old definitions of the words liberal and conservative. Read the post above yours.

Jesus would approve of torturing prisoners of war, especially when they hault the spread of Christianity, and bring evil to the world. After all, he told his chosen people to annihilate the infidels in Israel, as they returned from Egypt. He destroyed everyone in the world except Noah during the great flood. In the end, He will destroy non-believers by casting them into the lake of fire. Must I go on?

You are operating off old definitions of the words liberal and conservative. Read the post above yours. Who redefined the terms? You?


Jesus would approve of torturing prisoners of war, especially when they hault the spread of Christianity, and bring evil to the world. Please cite me ONE verse in the New Testament from Jesus' ministry on earth that would support your assertion.

It certainly flies in the face of this passage in Luke (chapter 6, verses 27-36) in which Jesus commanded:




"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

And remember, God and Jesus are one in the same.

1 Timothy 6:17
Tell those rich in this world's wealth to quit being so full of themselves and so obsessed with money, which is here today and gone tomorrow. Tell them to go after God, who piles on all the riches we could ever manage—to do good, to be rich in helping others, to be extravagantly generous. If they do that, they'll build a treasury that will last, gaining life that is truly life.

Matthew 18:33-35 (New King James Version)

33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.
35 “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”[a]

Notice it was the master (i.e. God) who was the judge and who dealt out the punishment. You are not God.

On that happy note, I'll jump off this diversion from the original thread topic... feel free, Mr. Conservative, to start your own thread should you care to discuss your prooftexting any further.

Notice it was the master (i.e. God) who was the judge and who dealt out the punishment. You are not God.

Are we a little sensitive? I simply answered your debate with verses proving my point. Just admit you're wrong and move on.

Sensitive? Not at all. You very handily prooftexted some verses trying to prove your point; unfortunately, you feel short.

I admit it: You're wrong. So, I'll move on.

:boff:

You are operating off old definitions of the words liberal and conservative. Read the post above yours.

Jesus would approve of torturing prisoners of war, especially when they hault the spread of Christianity, and bring evil to the world. After all, he told his chosen people to annihilate the infidels in Israel, as they returned from Egypt. He destroyed everyone in the world except Noah during the great flood. In the end, He will destroy non-believers by casting them into the lake of fire. Must I go on?

Please find me the Biblical passage where Jesus talks about torture being okay.

Making references to the vengeful God of the OT is not quite accurate. First, you profess Christianity. Therefore, you must subscribe to Jesus' message (which substantially differs from what we find in the OT).

So find me some NT authority.

Please find me the Biblical passage where Jesus talks about torture being okay.

Making references to the vengeful God of the OT is not quite accurate. First, you profess Christianity. Therefore, you must subscribe to Jesus' message (which substantially differs from what we find in the OT).

So find me some NT authority.

I think he described torture to you, describing what Revelations describes will happen in the End Times.

HAHAHA. I just have to say this is funny. I am not sure if it's the Babtist talking or people that don't want God to be an angry God? Surely you have to know that God will punish people, OT and NT says so. God is a god of love, but don't you as a parent get mad? How about an American, do you get mad? Come on God gets angry, no matter what part of the bible you read?

Maybe so...but as a parent, do you torture your children when they do something they aren't supposed to do? As an American, do you go out torturing people in the name of whomever?

On this site I've been accused of being "immoral" by some members, yet even I know that torture is wrong? Wha?????

HAHAHA. I just have to say this is funny. I am not sure if it's the Babtist talking or people that don't want God to be an angry God? Surely you have to know that God will punish people, OT and NT says so. God is a god of love, but don't you as a parent get mad? How about an American, do you get mad? Come on God gets angry, no matter what part of the bible you read?

I don't see how any of that justifies torturing people in the name of national security from a Christian standpoint.

If we can justify violent acts with our religion, are we really that much different from Osama and his thugs?

If we can justify violent acts with our religion, are we really that much different from Osama and his thugs?
Exactly.

A fellow blogger, Anthony at Fides et Veritas (http://www.taac.us/wordpress/archives/608), made some worthwhile points on this very issue in a recent post:



The Bible speaks of how we as Christians, nay, we as ordinary human beings should treat each other. The question then becomes: Is our Christian President and leaders following the Biblical commands on the treatment of others, even those that offend or hurt us?

In the Gospel of Saint Matthew we find, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.” (Matthew 5:38-42)

Our response to those that hurt us, according to Christ, is not to slap them back, not to subject them to water-boarding or other forms of torture but rather to turn the other cheek. Does this mean that we should not fight back against a known enemy, or protect ourselves from possible danger? Of course not. The question that must be answered in all honest to ourselves and others is whether or not we should use the kind of techniques that our enemy uses to punish those who wrong us or to question those we view as our enemy.

I find it morally repugnant that our President professes to be a Christian yet believes that in order to win the war on terror we must stoop to the level of the terrorist. In Saint Paul’s letter to the Romans we find the following: “Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men.” (Romans 12:17) This passage does not say that we should only repay evil with evil if they are Muslims, nor does it say that there are certain conditions that make repaying evil with evil permissible. Rather it says that we are to repay no one evil for evil.

And in Romans 12:19-21 we find: “Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. Therefore “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” This passage alone denounces torture. We are commanded by Sacred Scripture to treat our enemies with kindness not to torture them. We as a country have held to this philosophy for many centuries now, but today we face the possibility of turning our backs on not only our history but on Scriptural commands as well. (more…) (http://www.taac.us/wordpress/archives/608)
We, as Christians, are to hold ourselves to a higher standard. And those who want to claim the U.S. to be a “Christian nation” must hold this country to a higher standard — much higher standard — of morality, ethics and standards of conduct. We cannot use the terrorists or other brutal dictatorships as the standard bearer. Our thirst for vengeance cannot overshadow our responsibilities to the God we claim to serve.

wait????????????? DID I SAY TORTURE????????? Let me reread my post? ooops I guess you read more into it than I wrote? How did you do that? <slapping my head>

I don't see how any of that justifies torturing people in the name of national security from a Christian standpoint.

If we can justify violent acts with our religion, are we really that much different from Osama and his thugs?

The Bible says eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. We're only treating these people with the punishment and torture they were dishing out. I don't feel sorry for them. Go Bush!

An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, pretty soon, the whole world is blind and in need of dentures.

Also, the "terrorists" being plucked off of the battlefield have not actually engaged in any overseas terrorism, suicide bombings, etc. for the most part. They are being punished for their intention/conspiracy efforts to do so.

The Bible says eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. We're only treating these people with the punishment and torture they were dishing out. I don't feel sorry for them. Go Bush! The Old Testament says that, but Jesus gave us new instructions (which you continue to conveniently ignore... just like the Pharisees did, preferring religious legalism and selective prooftexting over God's message of love, grace and mercy that He sent us through Jesus):


"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
(Matthew 5:38-48 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:38-48;&version=31;))
Note the red letters. Jesus said these words -- you know, an in Jesus Christ, from whose name you derive Christian which you proudly claim as your username.

Read Revelations. It discusses a great deal of torture that God will bring forth on humans.

Read Revelations. It discusses a great deal of torture that God will bring forth on humans. First of all, I've read Revelations; interestingly enough, it's not the only book in the Bible. There are 26 other books in the New Testament and 65 other books in the (protestant) Bible.

Furthermore, your prooftexting of the verses you continue to try to use as justifications only demonstrates that your grasping at straws, trying to mak verses say something they do not in their proper context.

Finally, what you speak of in Revelations is final judgments by a sovereign, ominscient Almighty God, not arbitrary torture at the hands of error-prone humans and an oft-mistaken earthly government. At least with God, we know His will is perfect. The same certainly cannot be said for any earthly institution or its representatives. I won't question God. Everyone else who engages in such behavior is subject to criticism.

Try again.

Gambling and poker both banned in US. Its gonna hurt both poker, and gambling players

Online Casino Play Online Gambling (http://www.crystalpalacecasino.com)

Gambling and poker both banned in US. Its gonna hurt both poker, and gambling players
Are you under the impression that gambling and poker are banned in the United States? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/Mad_Monk/Smileys/crazy.gif

We've got torture. It's called "freezing rain."

Is this about gambling? I can say one thing....personal responsibility! Pull religion in if you like, but sorry its just like anything else....its a choice! I gamble, but I am also responsible. Its all about choices PERIOD.
Window you are right, freezing rain is torture! hehe.

It's so funny, the far left and far right have so much in common with each other it's not even funny, and both hate one another so they would never admit it. Both want to control your lives and tell you what you can and cannot do, it's just that each group has different pet projects where they would like to see this succeed. Generally we're talking about government interference having anything to do with "morals" from the standpoint of stopping the seedier side of life all-together, than the conservatives are for it. If we're talking about allowing the government to interfere with peoples' lives from the standpoint of spreading the "morals" of helping the disadvantaged and things like that, the liberals are for it. This particular subset of conservatism doesn't like to admit it, but if they would take a hard look at themselves they aren't any better than the liberals.

I just want to start up and be a part of the "LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE" party. How can I get that on the ballot?