How sinful is gambling?
This question is prompted by an incident in the [Australian] National Rugby League. The Manly club, prompted by a round supposed to promote "inclusiveness", announced that their players would wear one-off a special jersey, which was basically their normal jersey with a couple of thin rainbow stripes added.
But seven of their players refused to wear it, on the grounds that their Christian faith condemned homosexuality, and that therefore they did not wish to be seen to be endorsing this "sinful" practice.
But they had not objected at any time to a far more prominent feature of the jersey (with or without the stripes), namely the name of an online sports betting company in very large letters on the front of the jersey. So clearly they (and their proclaimed Christian faith) do not regard gambling as a sin, despite the social harm it encourages.
So that prompts some questions for discussion: how sinful is gambling? does the bible say anything against gambling? (or indeed against homosexuality - though perhaps that discussion is out of bounds in Purgatory)?
It may be noted that as all football codes in Australia now prohibit team sponsorship (and jersey signage) by alcohol or tobacco firms, many other clubs are now sponsored by gambling related companies, who also advertise prominently in the TV broadcasts of matches.
But seven of their players refused to wear it, on the grounds that their Christian faith condemned homosexuality, and that therefore they did not wish to be seen to be endorsing this "sinful" practice.
But they had not objected at any time to a far more prominent feature of the jersey (with or without the stripes), namely the name of an online sports betting company in very large letters on the front of the jersey. So clearly they (and their proclaimed Christian faith) do not regard gambling as a sin, despite the social harm it encourages.
So that prompts some questions for discussion: how sinful is gambling? does the bible say anything against gambling? (or indeed against homosexuality - though perhaps that discussion is out of bounds in Purgatory)?
It may be noted that as all football codes in Australia now prohibit team sponsorship (and jersey signage) by alcohol or tobacco firms, many other clubs are now sponsored by gambling related companies, who also advertise prominently in the TV broadcasts of matches.
Comments
I have occasionally placed bets and on one level it can be considered harmless fun. However - especially on the commercial level - we are very much into areas in which Jesus was vocal in condemnation and other areas that are undeniably harmful.
Considered;
Betting companies make a lot of money without producing anything.
To bet is a striving for money.
Gambling is (at least for some) very addictive.
I don't think it a stretch to argue that the big betting companies are extremely exploitative. I hate betting advertising.
AFZ
*not everyone would consider it a sin, of course.
Maybe sports teams should not be encouraging such stupidity.
But I think in general 'sin' is something the Holy Spirit may convict an individual of in a particular and probably unique situation.
I think betting companies and advertisers should be much more strictly regulated.
I’m a Methodist so I feel guilty just buying a raffle ticket!
There are issues beyond addiction as well. Particularly for things like national lotteries, there can be a message portrayed which encourages the poor to play because it gives them the chance to escape poverty. Though, of course, the chances of a big win are so small that you'd be better off putting money spent on lottery tickets into the bank, or invest in home insulation etc to cut energy bills. It's a false hope, but the operators play the "it could be you" and "make your dreams come true" cards in advertising because they know it works at getting the desperate to part with money they'd be better off spending elsewhere.
A societies, our legislatures have over recent years taken steps to limit advertising for alcohol, tobacco, sugary treats and the like because of the recognised social harms these can be associated with. That gambling isn't treated in the same way, including bans on sponsorship of sports teams and events, is definitely inconsistent.
I think there is value in considering the existence of both corporate sin and personal sin - certainly this seems to be the Biblical model to me.
We have a retired hospital chaplain at our church who specialised in mental health issues, so spent much of his ministry dealing with people who had serious addiction problems. He often points out that gambling addiction is just as serious as alcoholism and drug addiction. He gets very angry at gambling advertisements that state the obvious like “only spend what you can afford” or “when the fun stops, stop”. He says it’s like telling a heroin addict to just stop shooting up or an alcoholic to just stop drinking.
I would personally place the blame on the gambling industry and their lobbyists within government, which I'm sure have their tentacles in many parts of Westminster. But eg a Christian event being held at a racecourse may not necessarily be a sin in itself, but choosing another location could potentially help protect vulnerable people attending. I would view it as something to consider as part of safeguarding, where failure to avoid the risky situation could well be sinful. I hope that makes sense.
There is a material difference here. Buying shares is an investment in a company that in theory at least in theory does something productive. The return, whilst not without risk, is built on what someone goes and does with that investment. Betting is an artificial creation and basically comes down to trying to outsmart the other party. Unlike share trading, it is a zero-sum game.
AFZ
Our Place often has one - usually attached to a community event such as a Jumble Sale, Summer Fair, or Christmas Market - but the next is planned for the Sunday on which we celebrate The Assumption of The Blessed Virgin Mary (14th August).
It will be held during post-Mass coffee hour, and the proceeds are to go to the Anglican Church in Papua New Guinea (not sure why).
There are Laws governing the organisation of raffles at such things as church or village fetes etc., and I know (because I made sure he knew about them!) that FatherInCharge abides by those Laws.
I dunno, though. Somehow, I feel that getting people to part with £££ in a speculative way is wrong, but I know that there is no compulsion on them to do so, and that the £££ raised is for charitable purposes. Most of our raffles, I must admit, are intended to raise money to pay our own bills, and allocating funds to another cause is unusual.
However, we always seem to get a good response when seeking to support a specific charity, by putting *The Bucket At The Back Of The Church*, so I'm not convinced that raffles are the only way to go...
As to the online adverts for gambling sites (their name is Legion), they are of the Devil, and should be banned. @Spike 's chaplain friend is right.
Why?
Yes, but what about for a replacement disciple?
Well, I gotta say, I've known alot of alcoholics, and I've known a few drug addicts, and I've known a number of people whose health was likely compromised by smoking(though that can he hard to ascertain sometimes), but I don't think I've really known anyone whose life was openly known to have been ruined by gambling. The one heavy gambler I knew well was relatively well-to-do, and his losses didn't seem to compromise his financial situation or quality-of-life. He was an older gent, and whenever he'd come into town, my usually non-gambling parents would visit the race track with him(*), and never seemed to worry that they were contributing to a debilitating lifestyle.
So, extrapolating from my experience, maybe there's a perception that it simply isn't a major problem? "Sure, some people go to the ponies a lot, but I like to play the office hockey pool once in a while."
(*) Despite being general abstainers, my parents were pretty non-chalant about gambling, and it was a family ritual to play simple card games for small amounts of money(we threw in dimes, as I recall). Plus, as kids, we were allowed to place bets in the family Grey Cup pool, and encouraged to buy lottery tickets as Xmas gifts and whatnot. No one ever seemed to think there was anything wrong with it.
So, extrapolating from my experience, maybe there's a perception that it simply isn't a major problem? "Sure, some people go to the ponies a lot, but I like to play the office hockey pool once in a while, so what's the big deal?"
Hm. I had not heard that story before, or had forgotten it.
Not quite a meritocracy, was it.
I suppose I must be the equivalent of those who say they are asexual with regards to love, sex and marriage, or those that say they don't drink alcohol because they don't like the taste.
However, although I don't think it's a good idea, and it's certainly a bad idea to get addicted to it, I'm not convinced gambling is specifically a sin. I've been to about 3 race meetings in my life and they didn't seem terribly wicked. I suppose this marks me as a bit of a wowser when I divulge that I've never been in a betting shop.
The only reference to it in the New Testament that I know of is the soldiers casting lots as to who get's Jesus' robe. Is that really making any statement on the morality of betting? I don't think so.
I can see the point about the damage gambling does to some people, but as with alcohol, I'm not persuaded by the argument that as there are some people for whom it is a terribly destructive temptation, the rest of us for whom it isn't should avoid it altogether. That would be not that far from saying that as some men beat their wives, all men should be celibate.
Does anyone know whether it was something that vexed the rabbis much in the First Century? If they were unanimous that it was a really bad thing, and Jesus is recorded as saying nothing about it, one could conclude from that that he saw no need to comment, that he just agreed with them. Otherwise, though, I can't help thinking that as an issue of morality rather than prudence it's uncertain and of low priority.
Otherwise, for me to say it's wicked or that I disapprove of it would rather look as though I was claiming spurious moral high ground by eschewing what I don't want to do anyway. Christians generally have acquired a bad reputation for disapproving of things other people enjoy, and that's something I don't want to align myself without very good reason.
Well, I suppose it could be the same argument that gets used to defend government spending via taxation, against some libertarian-type who points out that instead of a welfare-state, everyone could just voluntarily donate to charity: the government might have a better idea of where to allocate financial resources than the general public, many of whom are acting on whims and responding to fads of the moment.
Plus, unlike a welfare-state, lottery funds have been freely surrendered by the buyer, so there's even less of an issue of personal freedom there. Kinda combines the freedom of private charity, with the centralized expertise of government.
I think you and I are on the same page here. One of the problens I had with the anti-globalization movement of the 1990s/early 2000s was how they seemed to obsess over targets that really just came down to personal taste: "Okay, are you smashing up a Starbucks because they're exponentially more evil than any other non-unionized restaurant selling third-world sourced coffee beans, or do you just find them tacky and don't want anyone else to enjoy them?"
This would not have been gambling as those taking part were not risking any of their own possessions.
Two, I once worked for a man who had a gambling addiction. He ended up owing me $5,000 in back pay. I had to quit. I ended up declaring that as a loss on my income tax. I knew I would never get it back. Yes, I could have taken him to small claims court, but I figured it was not worth it.
Gambling addiction affects the same receptors in the brain as cocaine. There are similar rushes for a person with either addiction.
Is it a sin? In and of itself, I would say it is a form of entertainment for most people. But, for a few, it can be very dangerous.
(The organisations ticket/prize distribution is off from my internal ideal model, but mines too generous.)
Individually i don't mind as long as it's 'fun' and for something I mostly want to support.
The UK national lottery, has I think become an ineffective way (the previous owners want the new owners to pay compensation for their loss of profits from the causes pot)
Offhand I can't think of a strong gambling verse (luck/Providence based decisions are present). But that might be indicative of people not wanting to look*. There's definitely hard fiscal and labour rules that are "definitely metaphorical, need interpreting and of their time, and in any case not our place to enforce them and we'll talk about them some other time and look a squirrel".
*I'm not sure if AlienFromZogs point about it being easy to proof text some issues and difficult for others was a reflection of the variations of what the text says about different issues, or about what we take to the text.
Yes it does. Thank you
My dad - a non gambler all of his life - said that he's only ever bet if the jockeys were racing by carrying the horses. He was a horse lover having worked with shire horses.
Sorry, but with the lack of punctuation and dangling "way", I think this paragraph maybe got botched somehow? Would you care to elaborate?
(And does the bit in parentheses mean that the national lottery was sold to new owners? And, if so, was that a privatization?)
In my opinion gambling is when you expect to win and need to win.
I assume you're taking a certain poetic license with your definition there: if I went to Las Vegas and played the slot machines for a week without caring whether or not I won, I would still answer "yes" if someone asked "Were you gambling on your trip to Vegas?"
Your definition, I think, would more closely fit the phrase "problem gambling".
I met someone once who was trying to make it as a professional poker player, and I felt much more uneasy about his choice of career. Because like @alienfromzog said, it's a zero sum game (actually, it's a negative sum game, because the casino, card house, or whatever will charge you money somehow for them to host the game you're playing). And you're explicitly not producing anything, or doing anything useful: you're going to spend an evening sitting at a table with a half dozen or so other people, and you're trying to take their money so that you can eat.
Perhaps you can rationalize it by saying that the other players (who you hope will be net losers) are paying for the entertainment, and you're providing it, but it seems too much akin to parasitism to me.
@stetson I wonder if pond differences affect anything, I believe UK gambling law especially regarding online gambling is very lax compared to in the US. Problem gambling is a serious issue in the UK (especially with young to middle aged professional men) and it does surprise me that churches speak about this so little when it does end up impacting churches and Christian events etc. But then the UK is also a nation of problem drinkers (personally I am medically teetotal but not from choice) and most churches say very little about that. I don't think churches should be lecturing people on the Demon Drink or Repugnant Raffle Tickets (and I don't think many people end up problem gamblers via St Windolene's annual tombola) but it's definitely something we need to be talking about more.
Ah. You're talking about poker tournaments - everyone pays an entry fee, gets a pile of chips, and the people left with all the chips at the end win money.
That's not how most poker pros make most of their money. Most poker pros are making an income in cash games: they show up to a poker game in a card house or casino, buy $1000 or $2000 or $5000 in chips, and hope to go home with double that (or more). And repeat the next day. And if they lose all $1000 on the first hand because they were unlucky, they buy another $1000 of chips and carry on.
(And you're right about there being a lot of skill involved in playing poker well, vs something like roulette which is pure chance. That's why the only professional roulette player is the casino.)
Professional poker players, bridge players, and the like are not problem gamblers, but they do profit from problem gamblers, and from recreational gamblers who are just losing their play money. Although they'd probably rather not have problem gamblers - they'd rather have sustainable agriculture, where they can regularly harvest all the spare money from all the local recreational gamblers, but leave them able to keep coming back for more.
Years ago my husband used to play penny-ante poker with a group of friends once or twice a month. No one lost or won more than ten dollars during an evening. Ten dollars is cheap for an evening's entertainment, and some players won a little money.
I strongly disapprove of gambling when non-players end up with some of the money.
Since then I haven't had much call to re-evaluate my thinking on it, though I've stuck with the idea that it's basically throwing money away, and there are better things one can do with money. So you could argue it's sinful in the sense of being irresponsible use of resources, irrespective of the addiction issue. But that might depend how much you spend on it - I don't know that putting £10 on the Grand National once a year could be considered irresponsible. At least if you have the money to spend.
So as I understand it, different US jurisdictions have different rules about how one may run a poker game. If you're playing poker in a card house or casino, rather than in your mate's basement, then the house provides a number of services. It provides the space, dealers, security, rule enforcement, and so on. You'd expect those services to be paid for.
In some places, you pay a fee (per hour, or per evening) to play in a game. In others, the house takes a small fraction of the amount wagered as its piece. I don't really see much philosophical difference between these two. Ultimately, what you might care about it how much it's going to cost you to play for an evening, rather than exactly how that payment is structured.
But I'd agree with you that playing for pennies in a group of friends isn't really gambling - it's just a way of keeping score.
Another of my early-adolescent gambling memories is an all-ages, play-money casino put on by a timeshare resort my family used to frequent. In retrospect, it was kinda cheesy(at a timeshare, go figure), but at the time, it seemed fun enough.
One thing that sticks in my memory is, prior to the event, telling an adult vacationer about it, and asking if he was gonna bring his family down. He replied "Well, I don't think I wanna teach my kids to gamble." I'll admit I was somewhat taken aback by that, since prior to that point it had never occured to me that the risk of kids becoming inveterate gamblers would really be an issue with something like that.
Story on the francisee dispute. It already was operated by a private company.
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/29/camelot-continues-national-lottery-battle-with-damages-claim
I didn't really resolve my thoughts, and there's going to be a lot of nuance. It's probably easier to leave it at saying I feel a bit more uneasy at the various UK big lotteries than the scouts tombola.
The UK lottery has 52% going to the prize fund, 25% going to 'good causes', 12% tax and 10% shop and operator costs/profit.
The first prize is very big in comparison to ticket prices (life changing), and broadly it skews to big prizes (I'm not sure what the breakdown is). A lot of the causes now sponsored are things that were done elsewhere (i.e. general taxation, or interested parties)
My half formed opinion is that the combination is one that isn't quite a 'fun way of giving' nor a fair long shot or any other model.
Partly because the house needs too much, partly as it's neither one thing or the other (premium bonds I don't think of in the same way). Effectively ending as a tax on those with less options.
On a similar level Westminster gets £4/£1 (they do sell more in £ terms) and parts of yorkshire £0.01/£1. Which again is complex because you can go to the West End from outside London, etc... But also does leave a bit of a poor subsidising the rich taste.
In theory a company does something productive. But it might not. Right now in the US you can invest in funds that are buying up apartment buildings, jacking up the rents, and driving people into homelessness. Huge rent increases make the properties more valuable, and then they sell them. These companies aren't building new housing; they're just buying and flipping existing housing. I would argue that betting is no more an artificial creation than the capitalism that allows the concentration of wealth into a few hands to the severe detriment of many others' lives - very much a zero-sum game.
My partner bets on horse racing just about every day; overall he makes money, but he doesn't depend on it for his main income. And I've been to the track with him and seen some very sad cases. So I see betting like I see alcohol: not a problem, except when it is.
In non-problem cases, we can probably just view gambling as a hobby, where what you're paying for is basically just the suspense, and maybe the intellectual experience(depending on the game: determining the odds on a horse is obviously more cerebral than buying a lottery ticket). Like any other hobby(like, oh I dunno, internet chats), it can be harmless and fun, unless it starts to dominate your life.
And for people like my parents,who afaik only ever gambled in Las Vegas and the semi-annual sports pool, trip to the racetrack etc, it doesn't even rise to the level of hobby.
I'm also very disturbed by the way the casinos moved into my city. They put casino gambling on the ballots. The voters shot it down. They put it back on the ballots. Rinse, repeat. After what, ten years of this? They finally got it through. Then they started relentlessly pushing for restrictions to be lifted on where and how, that sort of thing...
We've got increasing crime, there is reason to think organized crime has moved in on this (why wouldn't they? money!), and it seems like half the poor Vietnamese I know live down at the casinos. They have jobs parking cars... and addictions.
In my home province, VLTs were introduced into bars early-90s or so, so you got a highly addictive form of gambling, combined with the psychological effects of booze hitting the brain on a constant basis.
There was later a referendum on removing them from bars, or more accurately, a group of referenda, because everyone was voting to decide policy only within their own local district.
I voted to keep the VLTs in the bars for three reasons, in ascending order of nobility...
1. The people pushing for the ban seemed like a lot of do-gooder social welfare types. There are alot of things such individuals are useful at, but I really tend to distrust them on any issue overlapping with "morality". (As a former worker in the helping professions myself, I feel entitled to express that opinion.)
2. I dislike using referenda to decide on public affairs, so in situations where I don't really have a dog in the-fight(not a gambler, but not negatively impacted by gambling, either), I tend to try and punish the people who forced the issue on the ballot, which in this case was the anti-gambling lobby.
3. A local social-conservative rag ran an editorial crowing that if we can ban gambling by referendum, there's no reason why we can't roll back abortion rights and gay rights the same way. (This position put them at odds with the somewhat classically liberal Conservative government.) Yeah, sorry, I'm willing to accept a few more broken homes and bankruptcies to keep Moral Majority North from having any sort of a victory.
(All that said, the whining of some of the pro-gamblers who lost in their regions was a hoot: one guy, a politician who owned a hotel with VLTs, I think, complained that the results were illegitimate, because if more of the non-voters had voted, his side would have won.)
Salvific faith isn't a meritocracy. That's the whole point.
How might churches talk about this without lecturing?
How about...?
"A lot of people find gambling fun, and you can do it now and then or even frequently without it causing much harm. But if you find you're losing control, our church has resources and counsellors who might be of assistance, or we can put you in touch with secular professionals if that's what you'd prefer."
With horse racing I think the harm to the animals and degradation of the environment involved should also be regarded as a social problem. Gambling involving animals results in widespread animal cruelty within the industry.