Deploring and Enjoying Those Vices

How do vices differ from other categories of crime? Ask a law enforcement officer — preferably one who serves on your metropolitan vice squad. He doubtless is painfully aware of the subtle difference.

A Crime with Ambivalence

   A vice is a crime with ambivalence. In contrast to other types of law violation, it has the added element of enjoyment — of popular appeal and implied public approval or tolerance. It is precisely the enjoyment and the popularity that make gambling a controversial issue in our society — a source of confusion and frustration even for many Christians. And remember, it is an issue that has been with us as far back as recorded history can reach. It is one not likely to disappear from view in the foreseeable future.

   Gambling is included among what some call our "victimless crimes," but that inclusion ignores the lost fortunes, the twisted personalities and the ruined lives

Page 70

that are laid at the door of gambling addiction. Nevertheless, it is thought of generally as a "vice."

   Murder, rape, burglary, assault and fraud are human activities deemed far less acceptable in the society we share. They are not mere vices; they are out-and-out crimes. They are blatantly immoral in any system of values. They constitute a grave threat to public safety.

   Such crimes do intolerable violence to individual security and well being. They are condemned by society and forbidden and punished by law more consistently than are more controversial vices. No one — especially not the victims — could find in felonious murder, rape, burglary, assault or fraud an element of fun or popular acceptance. When we speak of these outrages against humanity, we will not hear amused snickers or see knowing, sidelong glances in response.

   We may get those snickers or sidelong glances, however, when we speak of prostitution or pornography or gambling — and the self-conscious snickers and glances are not unheard of among professing Christians. The justification for that discriminating word, "vice," lies in the fact that offenses within those categories — drug use, illicit sex, pornography and gambling — combine simultaneous fun and wrongdoing in the eyes of some Americans.

Deplored By Some; Enjoyed By Others

   Apply a realistic definition to vice, then, and you speak of a human activity that can be deplored by some people while it is being enjoyed by others. Human nature being what it is, the deploring and the enjoying may even be done at the same time and by the same people!

Page 71

That is why "vice laws" often are not enforced as stringently as those making other more overtly dangerous or intolerable human behavior illegal. Even if they are enforced, the penalties are less harsh. Some Americans would like to see all of them repealed.

   Seldom do you hear of a campaign to legalize murder, rape or bank robbery. The proponents wouldn't get very far. But a sizable segment of our society would like to take the illicit stigma from those prohibited — though enjoyed — human weaknesses we refer to as vices. "After all, everybody does it anyway," is the rallying cry. Powerful forces are at work today contending that no one should be allowed to set arbitrary rules to govern the behavior of others. Legalized gambling, pornography, marijuana, cocaine and prostitution have proponents in the society all of us must share.

When Vices Become Licit

   We are confronted by a curious paradox whenever new legislation changes an activity traditionally regarded as a vice from criminal to legal. The stigma is removed, but the suspicion and the fears remain. Moves to legalize gambling inevitably resulted in the placing of strong bureaucratic control over those allowed to provide the legalized gambling opportunities. The industry that previously was illicit is expected to accept the necessity of those controls. But seldom does it work out that way. As soon as the enterprise is declared legal, its entrepreneurs begin to regard themselves as legitimate businessmen. They resent and inevitably resist the state's attempt to "control" them.

   When Nevada repealed all laws against gambling in 1931,

Page 72

it anticipated the need for controlling agencies to protect its citizenry from the potential evils of the industry it had declared legal — legal, yes, but not really trustworthy. The nature of that control has evolved through the years, and it must continue to change in response to increasingly shrewd efforts by the casino industry to elude its restricting hand.

The Only Thing Different Is the "Legal" Label

   The new label of "legal" did not, of course, change the character of Nevada's potentially threatening public indulgence. Neither does God's righteousness or His will for His people change along with public sentiment or bow to a majority vote. Gambling itself remained exactly whatever it was before the legalizing took place — in Nevada, as anywhere else. The character remains the same; the classification of "legal" is the only thing that is different.

   Nevada's carefully designed control apparatus, however, bears eloquent witness to the fact that those who benefit from the liberalized laws can be counted on to abuse their privileges. That reservoir of anticipated abuse includes not only the lingering likelihood of infiltration by organized crime — but also skimming of profits, evasion of taxes and felonious rigging of odds beyond an acceptable level to help the house fleece the unsuspecting gambler. Now and then, the roles are reversed and it is the gambler who fleeces the house. It becomes a simple strategy of "doing unto others before they do unto me!"

Page 73

   The necessity of a controlling agency and rigidly restrictive guidelines where gambling and other vices have been made legal clearly implies that the once-prohibited-but-now-legitimized activity still is dangerous. though it now bears the imprimatur of public acceptance, it retains nevertheless a proven potential for inflicting harm upon society. Restricting laws and controlling agencies clearly imply: "Where there is vice — legalized or otherwise — someone must be on guard to protect the public interest."

The Paradox of Legitimized Gambling

   So here is a paradox: in the light of these implications and the fears of public harm, how do we justify the legalization of, say, a state lottery in Montana or gambling casinos on Miami Beach by claiming the indulgence isn't really all that dangerous? Where is the moral and spiritual spine in passing it all off as inevitable "because people do it anyway?" I find roaches in my kitchen now and then, but I'm not importing more of them or throwing away my Raid.

   How can we hold that vices offer benefit to society and need not be feared, yet maintain at the same time that they are illegal unless they are done by the state or under its control? If they are harmless, then what is the justification for those strict controls? Our desire to protect ourselves lays bare a precarious and untrustworthy side to the industry which we legalize in spite of the calculated risk.

  To decriminalize a once-recognized vice and then to say the enterprise is legal for no one but the state or the privileged few it authorizes will be seen, sooner or later,

Page 74

by protest groups as another new area of hypocritical discrimination. By the time our anarchists think it through, state lotteries and carefully controlled casinos doubtless will become yet another invitation to violent dissent.

The Question Is: Do We Choose to Participate?

   The question is not whether we will consent to live in a society where integrity is elusive, where abuses are widespread and where winning or losing valuable assets depends on the toss of a coin, the finish of a race, the turn of a card or the fall of a bingo number. Christians are not in the majority, and we do not control the democratic process. The question is whether or not it is in our own best interest as followers of Jesus Christ to participate in a potentially harmful vice, simply because the state legalizes it and society describes it as "merely having fun."

   In many states, our co-existence with legitimized high rollers has been determined for us already through the inevitability of human weakness and the fluctuating ethics of our society. But being in the world does not make us proponents of the world's priorities or participants in its value system. For centuries, Christians have accepted in triumph and by faith their unique role of sharing the environment with worldlings — yet remaining aloof from and uninvolved in their follies.

   Legal or illegal, approved or disapproved, wise or unwise, harmful or otherwise, betting on something and hoping for the impossible apparently is a permanent character flaw wherever members of the human species are found.

Page 75

In this particular swing of the pendulum, opposition against lotteries and casinos is crumbling. The moment may be close at hand, in fact, when believers who voice their opposition against gambling will be classified as holdovers from the days of chaperoned dates and segregated dormitories.

   Let me show you a dramatic example of that human character flaw as we see it in action at 49 oval tracks across our nation. [Webmaster's note: As of 2009, there are 125 horse racing tracks in America] Let me take you where the "King of Sports" reigns before a court of frenzied spectators holding $2 tickets to win, place or show — but mostly to lose.

   All set? Then let's get going.

Points to Ponder

1. Is gambling really a "victimless crime"? Even if the family breadwinner cannot be classified technically as a compulsive gambler, are his dependents deprived by his losses at the race track or card table?

2. As a Christian, suppose you were asked to select the "least sinful" indulgence among the following: (a) attending an XXX-rated film at an "adult" theater, (b) spending an evening with a prostitute or (c) betting at a roulette table in Las Vegas? By what criteria would you determine your answer? Do you think God maintains a rating scale for sins as we are prone to do?

3. Does it trouble you that in states where lotteries have been legalized this kind of wagering still is illicit and

Page 76

punishable under the law except when it is sponsored by the state? Is there something about state sponsorship that takes away the stigma of "wrong" and provides an ethical and moral acceptability for something otherwise considered criminal?

4. What is implied by the fact that where casino gambling has been legalized the state creates rigid laws and guidelines to monitor and restrict the way the industry conducts its business? If casinos are harmless, why the suspicion on the part of the authorities and the imposition by them of strict controls rather then relying on the good old American "assumption of innocence"?

5. If a Christian determines that indulgence in gambling is, indeed, contrary to the will of God for his life, which of the following courses of action would make the most sense: (a) leave no stone unturned in a personal campaign to rid the world of gambling temptations; (b) discuss with your pastor and church officials the possibility of a church rule prohibiting members from placing bets; (c) make a quiet personal commitment to the Lord that, with His help, you will avoid situations that might lead to your being tempted to indulge in the vice?

Chapter Seven  ||  Table of Contents