There are people who still think divorce is a sin. They are entitled to their religious opinions, but they
are not entitled to have those opinions be the basis and justification of our laws. "
Kirsten Kingdon to Michigan's Between The Lines, July 6
The recent (2000) political battle in South Carolina over gambling -- in particular, video-poker machines and a state lottery -- showed that many people support laws which impose their religious moral values on others --and go to sleep at night truly believing they'd done a very good thing. These people believe that imposing their values on others will solve many social problems. I agree.
I wonder, though, how many more social problems in the rural South could be solved if more people would put down their Bibles just long enough to discover what the inside of their local library looks like.
Preacher Power. I found at how many people thoughtlessly and obediently followed their preacher's orders on voting day. I had no idea at how effective the "a-good-Christian-would-vote-this-way" -strategy is.
Here's an email that I got in 1999 which further exemplifies the religious culture of South Carolina (and the South in general)
As I followed the 2000 political battle over gambling in South Carolina, I made some discomforting observations. During the period leading up to the referendum, I kept an eye on local media and discussed the issue with friends and family who live in S.C. It made me give some thought to role of religious organizations in politics, and particularly conservative Christian organizations. The debate which played out in the media appeared to be mostly independent supporters against powerfully organized religious opponents.
Members of each side easily found and presented statistics, facts, & figures to support their view. It seemed that there would be no economic advantage to allowing poker-machines or a lottery. While gambling would generate desperately needed revenue for the state, it would also cause or worsen social problems. In the end, it came down to the issue of whether or not citizens should be allowed to make their own decisions when confronted with a poker-machine or a lottery billboard. Most religious groups overwhelmingly believed that this decision should be made by the State. They felt that it was necessary to forbid gambling in order make SC a healthier, better place. This view is shortsighted. By adopting this view, they are taking the "easy way out". Categorically forbidding something is not always the best way to deal with the problem. A far more effective, yet also far more difficult way to deal with the social problems associated with gambling would be for these groups to educate their members and their children and to teach them to make wise decisions. This policy of forbidding things has proven over and over again to be a complete failure. Take the issue of sex , for example. Their categoric forbidding of sex before marriage has little or no effect on teenage sex. The result of the Verbot is to attach a negative stigma to it, and simply gives parents an excuse to avoid confronting the difficult topic with their children. A further result of the "moral" Verbot is that SC is one of the nations leaders in teenage pregnancy. (and probably STDs also). Alcohol is another example. It's illegal for anyone under 21, therefore parents who drink with their kids are "criminals" -- legally from the point of view of the state, and morally from the point of view of the church.) Almost no one would disagree that teenagers drink any less as a result of the law. The final result is that high school kids drink excessively and secret parties, attempt to drive home, and quite often kill themselves or others in the process.
-sex
-alc