Dangers of permitting gambling in Cayman

| 12/07/2010

The United Church in Jamaica and the Cayman Islands has always opposed gambling. This is principally because it is contrary to our Christian beliefs, but it affects all of society, with the evidence that gambling leads to a deterioration of the social fabric as it exploits human weaknesses, undermines work ethic, leads to increased crime, is destructive of family life and promotes personal and institutional greed. It exploits the most vulnerable in society and represents a major transfer of resources from the very poor to the very rich.

The United Church understands that government needs to broaden its revenue base. Various proposals for a national lottery and casinos have been brought up in the past, giving similar reasons, namely that government was running out of options to raise revenue. However, the country has managed to get by and find ways to keep the country prosperous without resorting to legalised gambling. It can continue to do so. An editorial on the subject in the Christian Science Monitor said it well: “A nation that fosters a reliance on chance and officially endorses a culture of irresponsibility all in the name of increased revenues and free enterprise is certainly playing games with its moral foundations.”

Crime is a serious, escalating problem in the Cayman Islands. Statistics from around the world substantiate that gambling increases crime. The poor and the youth are most vulnerable but the problem of gambling can affect anyone regardless of age, gender, race, or social status. The Commonwealth nation of Australia, that has long advocated gambling as a national pastime, is now reviewing its policy because of the growing rate of addiction and the impact on the social fabric of the nation.

It is estimated that 10% of problem gamblers and two thirds of those who are receiving counselling have committed a crime because of their gambling. The first gambling-related crime is often perpetrated in the same year as, or just a few years after, starting regular gambling.

Gambling crime can be divided into four categories: illegal gambling, crimes committed to support a gambling habit, crimes that occur around the gambling locations, family abuse.

The major reason for gamblers to commit crimes is to fund their gambling activities. Gambling crime includes theft, forgery, embezzlement, fraud. It can also include domestic violence, assault, child neglect, suicide, prostitution, vandalism, breaking and entering, and home invasion. A significant amount of the crime related to gambling is not reported to authorities.

Organised crime has a big stake in the gambling industry. One former Florida gGovernor has said, “The Mafia follows gambling like sharks follow blood.” Casinos are particularly attractive to organised crime. Casinos present ideal opportunities for the skimming of profits as well as the laundering of moneys already earned through crime. Related crime such as loansharking and prostitution follow closely.

Local proponents of gambling emphasise the supposedly tremendous employment benefits but have not published hard facts to support this contention. In the US, there have been, instead, reports of the grave economic difficulties faced by many employees of casinos. We certainly cannot afford to have any more people in Cayman being employed in poverty creating jobs. A study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis summarised that: “The employment effects of casino gaming are difficult to quantify. A casino may draw labor from outside of the local area, thus leaving local employment conditions unchanged … It is possible that casino gaming may reduce employment in other local industries… The net effect of gaming could be positive or negative depending upon the degree to which casino gaming substitutes for or complements consumption at other local businesses.”

That possibility should not be overlooked here, where existing businesses are struggling to maintain their individual share of the tourist’s wallet. With casino gambling now so readily available in the US and our neighbouring islands, surely the question must be asked as to how will Cayman outshine their gambling industries that would cause tourists to incur the higher expense of a Cayman vacation to do what they can do at home or in one of our lower-cost neighbours. Certainly it seems basic to ask how will gambling differentiate our tourism product from that of our competitors where it is already available. It is widely suggested that this blurring of our tourism product in recent years has been a major factor in its relative decline and instead we must seek to recapture the differential advantage we previously offered.

The Cayman Islands has traditionally been known for its friendly, hospitable, Christian, hard working people. Crime used to be almost non-existent. We must all work together to restore that reputation. Introduction of legalised gambling will not do this. Government has a moral responsibility to enact laws which do not undermine or weaken the moral fabric of society. Let us clearly convey this to our elected representatives as they seek to hear the will of the people. Cayman can learn from the serious problems encountered by other countries that have extensive gambling and not follow down that same path. Any potential short term gain does not justify the long term detrimental effects that gambling will have on our society.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Viewpoint

About the Author ()

Comments (116)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Sam says:

    Is not religion itself a gamble? – if  we win and go to heaven if we lose we go to hell! Then does that make church goers gamblers on the after live because it can never be proved either way!

    As with everything there is white collar crime and blue collar crime – a lottery ticket (white collar) and the numbers (blue collar). So either make legal or enforce the laws but don’t just turn blind eye to this – as usual.

  2. Man says:

    The leaders of churches have done more to secure approval for gaming than the persons seeking the licenses. You all are about to come to understand why the Church and State need to be separate. Your pandering to this Premier is going to bring you all down and I hope God has a special punishment for each of you. When you refuse to discipline your members, when you seek revenues over saving souls, when your members publicly support gaming you deserve what’s headed your way.

    • anonymous says:


      I don’t get this topic "dangers of Permitting gambling in Cayman!"

      Gambling is already here !

      And the bookies, they are stealing from government and the people!

      That money needs to be spent on education.  One or two big belly men wearing t-shirts with a PPM water mark , march to the bank every Monday morning laughing all the way, Why arn’t you churches crying out against that? That’s not fair, I need some of that money. they had it long enough!

      If you  in all your religious glory can not stop liquor sales, you won’t stop gambling either, its just not logical. It is morally wrong  for you clergy to behave like this.Gambling must be legalized to be politically correct. The premier regardless of how saved he may be must legalize it in order for government to get their share to help carry the financial weight of the country. So all this big todoo is for nothing!

      Ministers Association listen up, as saved as I am, I realize that gambling must be legalized because it is a greater sin to allow people to gamble illegally and allow one or two fat big belly, beer belly men to laugh all the way to the bank every Monday Morning while I’m on my way to ask for an extension to pay my light bill!   sane?

      What would Jesud Do?

      He would say render to Ceasar that which is Ceasars and Unto God that which is Gods.

      Now mInisters you are Gods, so go back to the pulpits and bring sinners to repentance.

      The illegal gambling money belongs to Ceasar, Big Mac and the government have to sort it out BECAUSE IT IS A PROBLEM! what part of that do you not understand. So Oh you all are for illegal gambling I get it, more is in the collection plate in illegal gambling funds ! that’s not right.

      And what about my $10 you all took from me telling me I would win a HD TV?

      I want my money back. that’s lying, cheating and stealing. All liars shall have their part in the lake of fire.

      Until you stop the raffle  ticket business, we can’t respect you as clergy, you must set an example. You are no better than these illegal gamblers who want to come out of the shadows and gamble legally. What’s wrong with that. It’s still sin,

      Gamble illegally is a sin

      Gamble legally its a sin.

      I don’t even gamble and here I am giving you advice on something you should know better. This is logic.


      Big Mac is much too smart to let them get away especially when the PPM family is enjoying  so much wealth from the illegal lottery!  .

      • Anonymous says:

        Please leave the political parties out of this. That only muddies the waters.

        Every argument you have raised for legalizing gambling could be raised for legalizing prostitution and drugs. They are both immoral, illegal and profitable, and govt. is making no money from them. Govt. could license brothels and advertise sex tourism to boost the profits. It could license drug dealers so long as they only sell the cocaine to tourists.  You have made it clear that your morality is for SALE.  "Lying, cheating and stealing" (your words about gambling) are OK so long as the govt. makes money.  That was the central point of the article which you entirely missed.

        "The illegal gambling money belongs to Ceasar, Big Mac and the government have to sort it out BECAUSE IT IS A PROBLEM! what part of that do you not understand".

        Allowing casinos for non-residents will obviously not sort out the problem of the illegal numbers games. It didn’t sort it out in the Bahamas. Quite the opposite, it will only tend to increase as people are tantalized by the sight of the casino but cannot enter it to gamble. And if all are provided access it will still not stop the illegal numbers racket, it will only mean that we have created more gamblers as people who would not gamble illegally are willing to do it legally.   

        Re clergy selling raffle tickets, you are making a gross generalization. It does not apply to the majority of pastors and churches.  Why even bring it up unless you think it applies to the writer of the article?  Funny, you say you are not a gambler but you are demanding back the money you lost hoping to win an HD TV. Your position seems to amount to little more than posturing as you try to attack the clergy for its position rather than address the real issues posed by legalizing gambling. You have stated that gambling is a sin and yet you have the nerve to ask "what would Jesus do?". I think the answer is obvious: he would not condone sin for profit.       

  3. Atheist says:

    I love the quote from Missouri "A casino may draw labor from outside of the local area, thus leaving local employment conditions unchanged".  Do they know a) Grand Cayman is an island and b) how our labour market works?

    We are not in Kansas, or Missouri, or Jamaica any more.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yes, I think they do know how our labour market works. Until very recently the majority of workers came from ‘outside the local area’ i.e. overseas. It is entirely foreseeable that a casinos might want to bring in its own people.  

  4. Anonymous says:

    At the end of the day "free will" be it define under the church or otherwise means that all have the right to make their own decision. The church will make its stand known and its members will decide if they will follow. That is the same for every poster on this thread. What is perhaps the difference is that the suggestion is that when the church leadership speaks the membership follows blindly. I dont know if that is true, I pray that whichever church you go to you will make up your own mind. As a christian myself I tell you this we need to judge the words even of our pastors. That is what they teach. hopefully.

  5. Asbo Zaprudder says:

    If a gay man buys a ticket for a church raffle is him committing a sin?


  6. Sandra says:

    One day, all the Pastors of the land had a meeting to discuss ecclesiastical matters that could affect church-growth in the region. Gambling was brought up to question, and there was a dead silence and fear over the prospects of gambling becoming legalized.

    Chairman: "Ministers, last year, we made 11,500,000 in our offerings and need another 10 million in order to fund the renovations of our homes and pay for our children’s education. We can’t allow any shortages of monies to deter the work of God. So let’s keep on par with the crusades in selling Jesus to the world.”
    "Mr. Chairman, sorry to interrupt you, I have a deep concern that could halt the work of God!"
    "Yes, what is it Pastor G?"
    “What will happen to the monies we suppose to be getting from our church raffles and bingo’s if this Government should ever legalize gambling into law?"
    "This is a good question and has a serious answer. I think everyone knows the answer Pastor G.  What will happen to us?  We will lose out!!!"  
    Pastor G: "Hence Ministers, the everlasting Gospel of Jesus Christ will not be preached to the world and God will be very upset with us if we don’t do something now to stop this EVIL from becoming law!"
    [Meanwhile after a short silence, a Pastor Q from the back of the room, who hates going to God in prayer and trusting in Him, raises his hand]
    "My fellow Ministers, I have a bright idea – Why not we form a coalition with the other Churches in the region. We can publicly come together and pay the media and politicians to oppose gambling in all its forms on our behalf. That way monies will continue flowing into our coffers."
    Pastor G: This is a brilliant idea!  The politicians are scared of us and scared of losing the thousands of votes from our members. Ministers, we can PUT OUR TRUST in them to make a positive difference on our behalf."
    Chairman: “But what if certain gays and people from the public oppose us?”
    “No worries, if they oppose us, they oppose the politicians, and we can always have them make laws to enforce our MORAL MANDATES, which is the mandates of Jesus Christ. They do it in East [referring to the Taliban and certain religious sectors that have influence over their governments].
    * Note this story is not to be taken literally, but is just showing that people need to see the road of danger when you have churches that rely on politics and the powers that be more than God who resides in the hearts of each and every person in the Cayman Islands.
    • Anonymous says:

      People like you wrote the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ in order to engender hatred against another set of people.  


      God does not reside in the heart of each and every person. That is patent nonsense.

      • Limey says:

        And people like you crucified Jesus as his message was against the views of the majority

        As for "God does not reside in the heart of each and every person. That is patent nonsense."

        Sounds like you bear a deep hatred of us Gnostics, maybe you should study more on tolerance


        • Anonymous says:

          LOL! So anytime you are in the majority you are like those who crucified Christ?! That is so self-evidently ridiculous that it requires no substantive response.

      • Sandra says:

        If God is the author and breath of life, how can you say someone else could live without Him?  Friend, it is either God abide in you or you are dead and don’t exist!

        • Turtle's Head says:

          Wow, I have just found out that I don’t exist.

          Oh no, I only don’t exist if "God" is the "author of life".

          Phew, I exist.

          That was close.

        • Anonymous says:

          You seem to have a habit of confusing matters, Sandra. This time you are confusing the spirit of man with the spirit of God.

          • Jon says:

            I tend to see that the "spirit of man" IS the "spirit of God." How can you separate them when one comes out from the other? They are a kin to each other. I don’t know, but I believe Sandra has a point. If someone is bad, he or she has just chosen not to be in harmony with him or her self.

            • Anonymous says:

              I.e. you think WE are God. LOL.

              How can we distinguish? Here are a few ways

              The Spirit of God

              – gives life, but we have no capacity to give life.

              – knows the mind of the Father and knows all things. We do not

              – is of infinite intelligence. We are not

              – is all powerful, while we are frail.     

              Clear enough for you?


              • Bodden says:

                whoever we are, we all are a part of God and come from Him

                • Anonymous says:

                  We are not a part of God. We are a part of his creation. 

                  Another confused soul deceived by the New Age.  

                  • Anonymous says:

                    We have a little difference, in that you were created but I evolved without any help of yours, or anyone else’s God.

                    Don’t worry though, we both want a more civil, and crime free society 😉

                    • Anonymous says:

                      It takes an extraordinary amount of faith to believe that our DNA evolved (all the while adding information) by random chance without an intelligent designer. More than I have. The probability of the coincidental formation of the code of an average protein in the human body in DNA by itself is 1 over 1 followed by 600 zeros., i.e. for all practical purposes ZERO.  

                    • Anonymous says:

                       It takes a lot more faith to believe that your "Inteligent Designer" firstly designed itself, then proceed to design everything else.

                      In the begining God created himself , and saw that he was good. Then he created the heavens and the earth……

                      Is this how Genesis was supposed to begin?

                      DNA evolution is a fact. This we know is done by mutation.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      God is the uncreated, causeless cause.

                      Mutations take place in nature very rarely. Mutuations in DNA would have had to been the rule rather than the exception to explain the diversity of life forms.

                      Francis Crick, the biochemist who discovered the structure of DNA, won a Nobel prize for the research he had carried out on the subject. Crick, an ardent evolutionist, stated the following scientific opinion in a book he wrote after testifying to the miraculous structure of DNA: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle".

                      Also, it is interesting to note the conclusion of the famous French zoologist Pierre Grassé, the former president of the French Academy of Sciences. Grassé is also an evolutionist, but he states clearly that Darwinist theory is unable to explain life and makes his point about the logic of "coincidence," which is the backbone of Darwinism:

                      "The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur… There is no law against day-dreaming, but science must not indulge in it".

                      I think you should heed Monsieur De Grasse’s advice.

                      DNA mutation cannot explain the origin of life.

                    • Anonymous says:

                       I did not state (or, said) that DNA Mutation explained the origin of life. I only stated that it is a fact that it occurs. However, it is always the position of "Creationist"  that anything science fails to explain, then the alternative must be "God". 

                      Your very first statement ("God is uncreated, causeless cause"), is as substantial as creationist will ever get to furthering their argument of creation. I guess you also believe that the "Archilles could have never caught-up to the tortoise". 

                      Science will never be perfect, and may very well never explain "The Beginning". However, it does make a far better attempt than any religion, and creationist theories.

                      Also, your math on the probability of life form evolving is lacking in consideration of the variable "Time". In this unimaginative view you can never grasp the probability of life form (in it’s basic of form) changing, and adapting over billions of years.

                      Perhaps, you are one to believe the earth is approximately 8,000 years old?

                    • Anonymous says:

                      "I did not state (or, said) that DNA Mutation explained the origin of life".

                      Let’s review. You started this whole exchange by stating (I paraphrase) that you are here by evolution without any assistance of or involvement by any God. This can only mean that evolution explains the origin of life and necessarily excludes God as the origin of life. 

                      I see that you have ignored the quotes I provided from two eminent scientists who are experts on the subject of evolution and DNA respectively. They have not of course ignored the element of time at all as that is at the heart of evolutionary theory. It is virtually impossible that DNA could have arisen from inanimate matter through numerous fortuitous accidents even taking into account the passage of billions of years. That is why they feel compelled to use the term "miracle".

                      The insistence by some scientists that God is displaced by evolution is based on ideology rather than the application of science and reason. 

                      Nice try to patronize me with the ‘8,000 years old’.         

                    • Eva Lotion says:

                      Try reading The Greatest Show On Earth.  Each chapter can stand as a free standing and independent means of supporting evolution as the only credible means of explaining the origin of mankind.  In terms of scientific analysis there is no debate about the how evolution has lead to the development of species, although there is debate within the framework of evolution as to the specifics of the process. 

                      I know that gravity works, there is no debate about how gravity will affect me in the day to day world.  We have real debate about what makes gravity tick.  It does not mean there is no gravity.  But that is the logic that creationists try to apply when they try to argue against evolution.

                      And yes, at the heart of one of the key debates in science is the "birth" of self-replicating DNA.  There are many theories.  And to be honest some sound crazy. 

                      But these arguments are very narrow and not central to what happened after the intial stages of "life" as we define it.  We developed from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee (ie not from chimps) and we shared common ancestors with other primates, and shared common ancestors with other mammals, and so back it goes.  None of that can be credibly challenged as a matter of evidence and cold hard data.

                      Evolution.  It sure beats magic.

                      Of course we are never going to persuade the bible bashers.  The irony is that these literalists are driving many away from Christianity by grasping onto ridiculous concepts like creationism at the expense of carrying the core message brought to mankind by Jesus Christ.


                    • Anonymous says:

                       In science evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, this area of science is called biopoesis.  Perhaps, now you may stop drawing your convenient inferences from my words.

                      Respectfully, I did not comment on any statements of scientist for the mere fact that I am not a scientist, and I am not so arrogant as to think that I can scientifically disqualify any works and theories of any scientist.  As, you may know  (or, do you know?) that in the field of science a “higher bar” of proof exists,  at the minimum one has to use the logical part of their brain (something seemingly discouraged in religion).

                      Furthermore, the vast majority of scientist are not believers of  the “Intelligent Design” theory . However, I am settled in my conscience that it isvery, very, likely that there is no God (as you refer to as Intelligent Designer).  Your position in this is “classic creationist” …”God exist” ..”now you try to disprove it”.  However, scientists have over the ages done a very good job of making the argument for God seem quite feeble.

                      How do you imagine your God to look? 

                    • Anon says:

                      Let me not draw inferences from your words but quote them directly:

                      "You were created but I evolved without any help of yours, or anyone else’s God".

                      That is a categorical assertion that the origin of life may be explained by evolution and excludes God. I see you have now abandoned that position and have sought refuge in a new word: "biopesis". Not that that helps much since it is already addressed in the quotes I provided.  

                      Funny, Eva Lotion still seems to think that evolution explains the origin of life. 

                      The fact that most scientists may hold to a certain position is more reflective of ideology than any conclusions based on science and reason. The scientific establishment seeks to ostracise and discredit scientists who disagree (and there are many). See "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". 

                      Scientists have not succeeded in making the argument for God feeble at all. Indeed, the honest ones are awed and humbled by their new discoveries into recognizing a superior intelligence at work. Nothing does this better than the discovery of the structure of DNA.

                      Dr. Werner Gitt, an expert in information systems gives the following deduces the following conclusions:

                      Since the DNA code has all the essential characteristics of information, there must have been a sender of this information.

                      Since the density and complexity of the DNA information is millions of times greater than man’s present technology, the sender must be supremely intelligent.

                      Since the sender must have encoded (stored) the information into the DNA molecule and constructed the molecular biomachines to encode, decode and run the cells, the sender must be purposeful and supremely powerful.

                      Since information is a nonmaterial entity and cannot originate from matter, the sender must have a nonmaterial component (spirit).

                      Since information cannot originate from matter and is also created by man, man’s nature must have a nonmaterial component (spirit).

                      Since biological information can only originate from an intelligent sender and all theories of chemical and biological evolution are based on the premise that information comes solely from matter and energy (with no sender), then the theories of chemical and biological evolution are false.

                      As recently as twenty-five years ago," says former atheist Patrick Glynn, "a reasonable person weighing the purely scientific evidence on the issue would likely have come down on the side of skepticism [regarding a Creator]. That is no longer the case." He adds: "Today the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis. It is the simplest and most obvious solution . . ." (God: The Evidence, 1997, pp. 54-55, 53).

                      The last question is another of your silly attempts to patronize me.      

                    • Ally Gator says:

                      Seriously do people believe this crap?

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Evidently very eminent scientists have come to these conclusions based on science and reason. I am not sure what qualifies you to term it "crap". In any event, saying something is "crap" is not reasoned argument, its just throwing a tantrum.  How dare anyone express a view different from yours.  

                    • Anonymous says:

                       Unfortunately they do.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Yes, according to you, 95% of the earth’s population are idiotsfor believing in a god.

                    • Blondie. says:


                      To sat 24 july 16:14 


                      Feck, ya los me. Am off for a cocktail.

      • Anonymous says:

        dummy, so God is something outside of us in the sky!


        You betta go back and read your bible and hate books, cause nobody need your expert advise. The fact that you would sit down to read ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ shows how mixed up you are

        • Anonymous says:

          God is not in "each one of us". That is plain from the atrocities committed by so many. 

          God may live in you in the form of the Holy Spirit if you are born again of the Spirit.    

          • Sandra says:

            Atrocities are committed because people have ignored God within themselves and have not listen to conscience. It is not because they are devoid of God. God is still in them or else their would be no room for repentance. The Spirit of God is in mankind; it is for mankind to accept the Spirit of God and His grace. It is more accurate to say that atrocities are commited by people who are not "connected" to God that is always in them, than to say atrocities are committed by people who don’t have God in them.That is like saying the creature can continue being the creature without the Maker and Sustainer of life within them. 

            You want to find God?  Look within! 

            You want to Satan? Look within!

            That is why Jesus said, "for the kingdom of heaven is within you"

            • Anonymous says:

              Sandra, you are following some New Age cult teachings rather than the bible.

              The bible teaches that we are dead in sin until we receive the new birth. To be dead spiritually is to be separated from God. Only his covenant people are described as the temple of God and having the Holy Spirit living in them. There is nothing at all in the bible that teaches that the spirit of God is in all humans.  

              True repentance comes when the Holy Spirit comes to convict you of sin. Clearly not everyone is convicted of sin or repents.  

              "The Spirit of God is in mankind; it is for mankind to accept the Spirit of God and His grace"

              The first clause obviously contradicts the second. Why would one need to accept the Spirit of God if he is already in you?


              • Sandra says:

                So what is wrong with New Age cult?  Don’t tell me, it is the devil stuff!  First of all, I am not for any cult!  Do you know what a cult is??? 

                I will have you know that the Bible has produced more cults than the Native Indians, my dear  :o)

                So pla… eeeze spare me from your ignorance, and branding me as some witch!  Just because I view the truth BEYOND a book, such as the Bible, does not mean that I am some misled follower of a cult or wicked person as you would try to make me look like.

                Also, anything you say to me as being true is coming from a book that has been translated hundreds of times and has derived itself from the Roman Catholic Church, which interpreted the book for her own ends. Listen Anonymous, I am not dumb, I know my history and I know the Bible.

                My question is to you, do you know the TRUTH?

                You ask, "Why would one need to accept the Spirit of God if he is already in you?"

                Your own book says to the effect that "Jesus stands at the door and knocks, if any man invites Him in, he would come inside and fellowship with them." Revelation 3. Meaning that Jesus is at the door of your heart, you must allow Him to come in and transform you. This is nothing to be taken literally. God is in each one of us!

                There are those who are connected to the Supreme Being, and simply there are those who crucify the Lord (figuratively speaking) within themselves by choosing to live a sinful life, by choosing to not allow Him to rule your life. 

                This view of mine, has nothing to do with CULT my friend. Jesus said and I repeat – "The Kingdom of God is WITHIN you" as well as outside of you. To answer your question, look at Nature for Truth as well. 

                A seed has the principle of germination in it. It has to basically die before it can grow. Once the seed is sown and watered under the right conditions, the germination principle becomes kenetic and charged with life. The seed begins to grow. So it is with the Spirit of God. I don’t care what your preacher tells you, but God’s spirit is in us till the day we die. It is for us to "die" or surrender like the seed in order for God to work in our lives. That is when God enters one’s heart. He is already in us and everything else, but the heart is Histhrone. We must come off the throne and allow Him to take over.

                There is no CULT in this teaching.


                • Anonymous says:

                  You are a prime example of a cult mentality. Take one verse fromscripture out of context and wrest it to your own destruction. The New Age movement is satanic. I recognize it because I used to be immersed in the New Age. Yo should not make assumptions about sombody listening to what their preacher says.

                  If it were not so tragic it would be funny that you are quoting a verse from Revelations that proves exactly the opposite of what you are claiming. If Christ is standing outside and knocking then he obviously is not inside.

                  Yes, I do know the truth, but it is clear that you are one confused soul who does not.

                • Bodden says:

                  thank you… I have heard that in history lesson before, how the Roman Catholic Church, headed by a Pope put the canon of the Bible together

                  • Anonymous says:

                    Before the Bible there was writings on scrolls. The Bible is a collection of a number of those scrolls. The Roman Catholic claims Peter as their first Pope which essentially means that they were the first Christian Church. As such when the scrolls were being collected and put into one book called the Bible they took the lead position. Not all scrolls that were present were placed in the Bible.

                    • Bodden says:

                      The Old Testament was Jewish in origin. There was no New Testament canon existing from Apostolic times. The New Testament came out from the Catholic Church. So… only people who are brainwashed, close their eyes to history and diss Catholics, calling them the false church. Some even go as far as to want nothing to do with Catholic! But the fact remains always, the Bible as we know it, was originally compiled by the "Mother Church." Truth was regarded as the "spoken word" because their was no printing press at the time, and the "written word," the Bible. Protestants later broke away from Catholics, limiting truth to only the "written word" although the Bible itself says men were moved by the spirit of God as they wrote.

                      I hope you consider history as truth.

                      In the section "Church Fathers" Wikipedia states that – 

                      "Soon after the establishment of Christianity in the first century, Church Fathers compiled Gospel accounts and letters of apostles into a Christian Bible which became known as the New Testament."

                      In the section "Development of the New Testament Canon" Wikipedia states further in more detail –

                      "The writings attributed to the apostles circulated amongst the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating, perhaps in collected forms, by the end of the first century AD.[2] Justin Martyr, in the early second century, mentions "memoirs of the apostles" as being read on Sunday alongside the "writings of the prophets".[3] A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus, c. 180, who refers to it directly.[4][5]

                      By the early200s, Origen may have been using the same 27 books as in the Catholic NT canon, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation[6], known as the Antilegomena. Likewise the Muratorian fragment is evidence that perhaps as early as 200 there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to the 27-book NT canon, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.[7] Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings are claimed to have been accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the third century.[8]"

                      If Wikipedia’s account holds any water to you, then I will have you know that Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Origen were all Catholics who gave their allegance to the Pope as Peter and his earthly succession.

                    • Anonymous says:

                      Let’s deal with the facts.  Try actually studying the issue rather than quoting Wikipedia.

                      You are falsely equating the Church Fathers and the catholic church (meaning simply the universal church) with the Roman Catholic Church. The Bible did not come out of the Roman Catholic Church.  As is evident from the NT the Church at Rome was not the first established (which was obviously the church at Jerusalem) nor did it have any universal jurisdiction over other churches. This ascendancy came when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire and therefore the church of its capital, Rome, gained primacy over other churches in the Empire. 

                      The Roman Catholic concept of a Pope was unknown in the early church. Roman Catholics may claim claim Peter as the first Pope but it is fairly obvious from the NT that Peter did not regard himself as a Pope, and none of the writings of the Church Fathers in the first and second centuries recognize any such office. There is no contemporaneous evidence that Peter was ever the Bishop of Rome. It is clear from his epistle to the Romans (the church at Rome) that Paul considered himself to have oversight over that church. Strange that an epistle written to a church of which Peter was supposedly the head does not address Peter at all. 

                      "Protestants later broke away from Catholics, limitingtruth to only the "written word" although the Bible itself says men were moved by the spirit of God as they wrote". 

                      I don’t how the Bible reference helps your case. You yourself have used the word "wrote".  The Protestant doctrine is that scripture is the only authoritative source of matters of faith and doctrine.  

                      One could equally say that the RCC is "dissing" Jews since it does not recognize any authority of Rabbis over them notwithstanding that the entire OT is comprised of Hebrew writings.            

  7. PastorB says:

    @ United Church in Jamaica and the Cayman Islands


    Gambling can be a distraction from a culture of responsibility. However, I think, as keepers of morality, you should focus your energies more on the proclamation of your Gospel and get out of the law-making process of a nation for the people and by the people, many of whom are not christian. Where in the Bible does it say that the church must get involved in politics? I thought Jesus taught a separation: “Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and unto God the things that are Gods.”

    The same moral route the Taliban took and later because they had civil support, became oppressive to the Afghan people. The moral route that what’s right for us must be right for everybody else. But Christian warfare and jihad should be warfare against spiritual darkness and sin – not against people and society!

    Of course, I am against the sins of gambling, but sin in the human heart is the root of all other sins. If the heart is unclean then everything else is unclean! Whether there be gambling or not, it doesn’t matter – the church is to preach against sin in the human heart, the love of God, and the attainment of salvation.

    The Church should not rely on politics and laws to get what she wants when there is a God in heaven she should be praying to in thanksgiving and supplications.

    Please know your role as a Church and study your Bible!


  8. Anonymous says:

    A very reasoned and thoughtful argument from the United Church (of which I am a member) and certainly thought-provoking, as evidenced by the number of comments it has generated. It goes a long way in highlighting some of the many moral and social issues associated with gaming. With numerous ‘charity’ raffles and, by all accounts, a robust illegal numbers game, Cayman is clearly a society already addicted to gambling. Imagine what will happen if it is legalized!

    The introduction of gaming will be of questionable economic merit – most studies on the matter are either biased to or against gambling, or are inconclusive. A lottery aimed at local people will not magicallyproduce more money; some people will merely spend their pay differently, siphoning money away from existing local businesses, others will simply spend their money more wisely. Tourists, likewise, will only spend in a casino those funds they would otherwise have spent on restaurants, tours or souvenirs. Existing businesses, not to mention families, will suffer when gamblers fritter away their money fruitlessly looking to ‘get rich quick.’

    The introduction of a lottery or a casino, like gambling itself, is a false hope for those who are struggling financially.

    • durrrr says:

      God knows what you are imagining. If Cayman is a society already addicted, precisely nothing will happen when it is legalised, as everyone will carry on as they were before. The only differences will be that we won’t be breaking the law, the Government will take a cut of the profits (see the Bahamas’ $20m per year revenues in gambling taxes), and, if anything, those who truly are addicted should be able to find treatment more easily, as it won’t be a black market industry.


      The introduction of casinos is, in my eyes at least, simply another form of entertainment. You pay your money, you enjoy the thrill of the gamble, if you win you have an amazing night, if you lose you only lost what you could afford and you had fun doing it. And lets face it, there really isn’t a wholelot to do in Cayman in the evenings.

    • Anonymous says:

      Earth to orbiting United Church member:

      Ever take the time to imagine if casinos are legalised and locals are not allowed to gamble there? No? Why?

  9. engorged says:

    Don’t ya just love it when fundies lecture others on morality?  

    They believe in the absurd but psychologically dangerous concept of original sin.

    They think it’s fine and dandy for the majority of human beings to suffer an eternity of torture by the hand of their "god of love".

    They hate gay people, equality for women, scientific progress, some medical advances, and human rights.

    While most of them are law-abiding people who may mean well, their ranks are filled with some of the most corrupt and depraved people who walk the earth, clear evidence that their demented subculture has no corner on the morality market. 

    In general they push for a backward and meaner world at the expense of those of us who are not braindead.

    And THEY try to lecture us on moral issues? Give me a break! 

    A casino might be a bad idea for Cayman, but not because god will hurl lightning bolts at us if we build one. 


    • anonymous says:

      With all due respect,


      united church of cayman and Jamaica.

      i think we have a real problem. The Jamaican Government and its churches have decided that since Jamaica has been destroyed by crime and drugs that they will find a new haven for its people to run to!


      Even involved with our Government decision making?

      This is too much.  Whether right or wrong, this is the people’s business, not the United church of JAMAICA ! and Grand Cayman.

      Has the UDP, or someone in our Government entered into some sort of secret affiliate form of governance unknown to the people of the Cayman Islands?

      This is way  "too much pork for trupance!"

      Big Mac motormouthing in Jam  about us, selling our safety off for visa-less criminals flooding our country, now the united Church of JAMAICA! DICTATING WHAT WE SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT DO IN OUR GAMBLING LAW SITUATION?

      WHY DON’T THEY SPEAK OUT AGAINST ILLEGAL GAMBLING?They seem to feel  like they have some special claim or steak into our country and the way its run. God forbid, but we do not need any corrupt Jamaican politics involved with our own political systems. The fact that the UDP is affiliated with Jamaican Politics is enough to get them ousted and KEEP THEM OUT OF OUR LEGISLATURE.!

      It can never mean anything good for the Cayman Islands.



      • Anonymous says:

        I agree with everything you say, but when it comes to our relationship with Jamaica, I think we need to strengthen it.  Sir, please don’t undermine the relations we have between Jamaica and Cayman.  Yes, the visa and our security are issues to consider, but I am one who still believe that THE WAY we imposed a visa-restriction on our neighbor, Jamaica, was done the wrong way. We should have held talks with the government on Jamaica on reducing crime before making quick decisions for our own security. There is just a way on how you do things. You just don’t overnight point the finger at Jamaica and say you will be imposing a visa-restrictions on the country without talks. It is just bad foreign-policy’ practice; countries who are at war with each other do such things!  Are we at warwith Jamaica?  I may not like the UDP, but I am glad that it is being address. I also feel part of the reason why we have treated Jamaica so coldly, is because their are those in government who have some bias against them – I hope I am wrong

        • Anonymous says:

          I think you need to check your information. As I understand it, there were indeed talks with the Jamaican govt. both before the imposition of the visa and subsequent to that. However, what changed the attitude of the Jamaican govt. was when the original plan for a U.S. visa to suffice was cancelled because it was learned that U.S. visas were being forged in Jamaica. As I understand it you are right that there was a failure to revisit the issue with the Jamaican govt. once that plan was dropped. If the Leader of the Opposition, who was then LOGB is to be believed (and I have no reason to disbelieve him) then the Jamaican authorities have not been cooperative in refusing Cayman access to their criminal database as an alternative to the visa.

          Cayman did not just suddenly "overnight point the finger at Jamaica and say you will be imposing a visa-restrictions" and it was not based on bias by some in govt. Instead, it was based on the recommendations of our law enforcement agencies which in turn was based on the intelligence they have.  The need for this had been discussed since the early 1990s. 

          The visa restriction obviously is not tantamount to a declaration of war. That is just ridiculous. Are we at war with the U.S. for which we must get a visa? Are Britain, Canada, Australia, India, Bermuda, Turks & Caicos, Anguilla etc etc. (all members of the commonwealth) all at war with Jamaica?    

    • Anonymous says:

      Your hatred for christians has blinded you to the fact that the article was not arguing the issue primarily from a more standpoint, but rather the negative social impact.

      Human Rights – the new religion. Those who dissent are heretics and must be persecuted.

  10. Anonymous says:

    United Church, (and all other churches and so-called "christians" of these islands) where was all this righteous indignation when rickety unseaworthy boats whose passengers included women and small children were forced from the shores of the land of "He hath founded it upon the seas"? 

    Where was the United Church, and pastor Al Ebanks and the CMA and Sykes and all the rest of you pompous (so-called christian) hypocrites when boatloads of pitiful people – every bit as much the children of the Creator as you – were turned away to face a perilous journey in high seas? Pretty damned silent the whole lot of you were. Hungry, cold, wet, frightened refugees were not worthy of your political posturing. You did not make it an issue. Their lives were worthless to you in comparison to keeping gays and casinos out.

    Humanity and Christlike compassion mean little to you churchites. But let the issue involve gays or gambling or other threats to your religious influence and power and you write letters and howl and squeal to the highest heavens.  Good job! God must be so very very proud of you! 

    Until you give me a good answer as to your lack of any significant concern for those refugees, you remain as utter, godless hypocrites in my sight.

    A passage in Matthew comes to mind: The king was telling certain of his people that  when he was in need and in affliction they had compassion on him and provided for his needs. Those he placed at his right hand – a position of esteem.

    But to those who ignored his needs and went about their merry way and did nothing to relieve the king’s affliction, scripture has this to say: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

    "They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothesor sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

    "He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

    "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

    " I was a stranger and you did not invite me in,…whatever youve done to the least of these youve done to me"

    Answer me this: What if Jesus Christ had been on one of those boats?

    Oh my! I can see it now. I would bet Pastor Al and Sykes and the United Chruchites and all the CMA’ers would have been there with skin-up faces, shaking His hand and welcoming Him to our shore! He would have been given the finest food and finest accommodations and an invitation to stay as long as He wished. All the politicians would be lining up for a grinning photo-op with Him. Well, read your Bible all ye who think themselves so righteous: The Bible all you hypocrites carry around every Sunday – as if it meant something to you – says it was as if Jesus Himself was on each and every boat you turned away!

    "…whatever you did to the least of these, you did to Me." 

    Jesus was here, but you turned Him away!

    " I was a stranger and you did not invite me in…"

    So please, stop acting like you are trying to defend the righteousness of the land for you have no compassion, no true righteousness, no integrity, no right to speak for the Almighty. You are the "whited sepulchers" Jesus spoke of, all goody-goody’ on the outside but full of dead mens bones and corruption. No wonder our country is cursed with all manner of social evils.

    Makes me sick to my stomach.


    • Anonymous says:

      spot on!….. the local money making scam churches are more interested in protecting their financial interests than protecting people….

    • anonymous says:

      Which refugees are you talking about and from what country? you need to be  specific when making such strong statements. always support what you are saying with dates and times of such incidents you deem worth of mention or attention.

      • Anonymous says:

        "Which refugees…?"

        You must be joking! The person who asked if your head was stuck in the sand was being generous.

        Either you are yanking my chain or you are brain-dead.  I do not have a record of the specific date, time or circumstances surrounding your birth but I am leaning toward the "brain-dead" option. Anyone in this country with even half a brain in their head knows about what I was making reference to.

        How the hell could you not know of the plight of boatloads of Cuban refugees turned away at our shores? Were you here in these islands as the stories unfolded?  If you were here and you do not know the story, then it safe to conclude that you were probably sitting snugly in your cozy abode and among thosewho did not give enough of a damn about these poor wretches to gather information about the atrocities for yourself. If you were not here at that time, you are a newbee to the islands and need to get some savvy as to the history of things before you venture so cluelessly into the world of public opinion.

        As you seem to have some excess time on your hands, why don’t you look up the dates, times, etc. All the local media archives have multiple stories about the subject. Perhaps you might want to make an official inquiry under the FOI act. I do not have the time to deal with such moronic nonsense as you request. That is what "site search" and Google are for. Use them! I saw more than one of the boats, saw some of the refugees with my own eyes; heard them with my own ears; and I understood their pitiful supplications in spite of my not-so-fluent grasp of Spanish. Many other Caymanians did, too. That is enough for me. I also followed the media reports of the official government policy of turning these people away without any assistance (such as food or water or fuel or repairs).

        If you need a time-frame, here is a reference to one of many such situations: Of particular note is an incident that occurred in April of 2004. Mrs. Berna Cummins gave the media a first-hand account of the inhumane treatment of refugees that she personally witnessed. I know God will bless Mrs. Berna for her efforts as she is among those who chose to ignore official policy and tried to offer some comfort and assistance by way of supplying food and water. (Only to be turned away by officials at the scene). According to Mrs. Cummins’ statement to the press, immigration officials would not allow her to give the refugees a container of water or any food. This group was forcibly sent back to Cuba. As one of the Cubans were being herded into a van, he put a knife to his own throat and threatened to kill himself rather than be sent back to Cuba where he claimed he faced certain death. (Who cares? send ’em back!)

        This type of scenario played out on more than one occasion and such things happened not only in Grand Cayman, stories from the Sister Islands about overloaded boats being turned away are heart-wrenching (for those that have a heart that is).

        In several cases refugees were forcibly returned to Cuba in spite of the fact that they stated they feared they would be subject to punishment, sanction or oppression. This is a "christian" country? Yeah! Right! Whatever. Only a fool buys that malarkey. Even a good atheist would call our policy towards refugees wrong.

        This country (oh, sorry, the Cayman Islands) actually signed an agreement with Cuba mandating the return of Cuban refugees back to Cuba. (No, I do not have the date. Look it up, ok?)  The official policy of this so-called "christian" land is: Who cares if they die? Turn ’em away!

        Not too much in the stories to identify us as a charitable country, much less a godly one. The fact remains that  – regardless of the country of origin, or dates or times – the Cayman Islands by their treatment of the Cuban refugees displayed a callous, inhumane and satanically evil attitude toward a needy people.

        And the "church" uttered nary a word!

        Their silence during the refugee situation is why I think it is a farce and an example of sheer hypocrisy that the United Church in Jamaica and the Cayman Islands includes in their letter here on CNS some blabbering about protection from exploitation of the "most vulnerable in society" as one of the reasons they oppose gambling. My question remains: Where were these hypocrites when the boats of "vulnerable" people were being treated inhumanely? Where were their letters when the mandatory refugee return treaty was being negotiated? I might have missed it but I did not see any letters from the UCJCI or the CMA, or any of the churches for that matter.

        And have you noticed that sanctimonious lot – the United Church in Jamaica and the Cayman Islands – have not responded to any of what I have written. Why?  Because a response with any shred of integrity or honesty would involve official collective repentance. Something that is not in the repertoire of those with darkened hearts.

        "Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels…"

        And, sadly, the most important thing on your indolent mind is a request for someone else to spoon feed you the facts.  Give me a break!

        • Anonymous says:

          You hypocrite. If the church is being "political" to speak out on this issue, would it not have been more "political" to weigh in on the refugee crisis?

  11. Anonymous says:

    Where did McKeeva’s Slush Fund money went to again, yes his Church.  His supporters will be against the United Church, because he had his personal falling out with that Church long ago.  Gambling is atop of his Agenda and he is going to ramrod the passing of the Gambling Bill through the house, without any fear of God.  Remember Money$$$$ is his God. It is just so unfortunate!!  Pray for him everyone, because he needs it and so do we.

  12. Anthony Montana says:

    If a casino is allowed in Cayman and locals are not allowed to gamble there, the casino will be a very good thing for Cayman. 

    If a casino is allowed in Cayman and locals are allowed to gamble there, it will be a very bad thing. 

    We want money coming into Cayman, not going out.  See the Bahamas model.



    • anonymous says:

      The Casino won’t work here. The place is much too small. The Casino would e a target for organized criminals to hoist and take off on their leer jets!

      A national lottery is all that the Premier is at liberty to approve so don’;t look for anything more., and really, that is all you need is a national lottery like the Florida Lottery. It would be the same as the illegal lottery you are now playing the only difference is that it would now be legal!. You can sleep at night not worying about getting busted!  so forget about the Casino, it won’t happen. but rest assured you will get the national lottery before 2011,

  13. Dred says:

    This is classical scare tactics based on rubbish.

    This so call message is a decade late and with no punch at all. You speak of social ills due to gambling but where are those magified ills now as we have gambling rampant even into the churches you hold so dear.

    You guys live in the movies. We need money now to fight the crime wave we are encountering not the fictious crime wave you see coming. Half of our problem now is there are far too many people out of work and things rising in cost. New construction will put bread on the tables of many and give us funds to fight what’s left of the gangs.

    Casinos could be designed like they do in other areas where locals can not play or could be done so only people with a high net worth can play and to do so they buy a license like you do to drive.

    Half of your problem is you are scared some of your gambling business gets taken away.

    You won’t stop and realise that our tourism product is depleted and has been for years now as our numbers continue to fall or should I say plumet in comparison of times past. Stayover tourism is teetering on the bring of total collapse and all we are clinging to is cruise tourism which barely gives us anything. We need more STUFF. We can not rely any longer on the beaches our tourist can no longer see because of the condos. Stingray city has given us just about all it’s got.

    We are sitting in a time when we need to refine who and what we are. We have already developed or should I say given way to the development of a new leg in Medical Tourism and we need to add to this a new direction in Gambling Tourism to support our fragile economy.

    We have to fully realise that at some point in the not too far future if we do not open these doors our worst fears of Taxes will be fully realised. Let me be clear once we start taxes we would have stepped on the gas going down a very steep slope.

    Half of our problem in the Cayman Islands is because of the separation of church and state. We don’t have it and we need it. But what we need most is the bigot politicians who play to them like the two leaders of the day. The worst is our current leader who get’s up ion church (not the LA but in Church) to say how he’s changing the one thing that works for us annually, Pirates Week just to secure a few more votes not fully realising the sheer stupidity of the statement itself. On a sinking ship the last thing you want to do is to cut way a rescue boat.

    I must say I am sick and tired of idiots trying to run our country and I’m tired of preachers who should be in churchs teaching the bible trying to play politics. Preachers do not belong in politics, they do not belong on committees or boards they belong in churches leading their congregation.

    Even our precious Lord and saviour himself allowed us to make choices right or wrong he gave us this right. Who are YOU to think you are better or more powerful or know better than he does? Who are you?

    People are born with the inalienable right to make the decisions in their lives right or wrong we make them for when the final bell tolls it is us who have to be held accountable for what we have done NOT YOU!!

    Gambling can be done in the Cayman Islands and in a way with minimal affect on social problems it only takes us to do it the way we the people of the Cayman Islands want it done.

    • Anonymous says:

      It is immature to be attacking the church for expressing its views on the issue. That is both its right and its duty and does not of course amount to "playing politics". If you really are a Christian you should be ashamed to demand that the church be silent on moral issues and stay within the four corners of a church building. That is the spirit of anti-Christ. The church’s mission is to be salt and light to the world. If you oppose that mission you oppose Christ himself.

      The views expressed in the article are not "scare tactics". They are based on solid statistics.  

      And stop distorting the matter of freewill. Obviously the whole point of Christianity is as a guide for people to exercise their freewill rightly. There are good and bad choices. Christ did not teach that it was alright to do whatever you please. His whole ministry was dedicated to showing people the error of their ways and guiding them to the right path. What do you think the parables were about? The sermon on the mount? The story of the woman caught in adultery? 

      The church was rightly criticised when it failed to speak out against Nazism in Germany. But of course according to you that would have been "playing politics". 

      You are naively taking this issue very lightly and looking at it through rose-tinted spectacles.  Do not let desperation cause you to abandon any moral compass. All of us will have external influences on our decision. Christianity is quite properly one of those influences in these Islands and in no way should the church apologise for that.  The church is not taking away any right from you, but you are seeking to take away a right from the church. Like those who did not wish to hear what Christ had to say you wish to silence it. 

      The thumbs down don’t really matter so knock yourself out. What matters is that I bear witness.

      • Anonymous says:

        FYI, it is not the least "immature" to have an opposing view, it is called the right of free speech. But free speech is something the "church" seems to know precious little about.  Speaking of immaturity, the "church" (whatever that is) whines like babies whenever its power and self-imposed position as Guardian of Morality is called into question.  And therein lies the rub, to quote The Bard.

        The "church" and its rubber squeaking toys are seen by all to get their knicker all in a knot when it comes to the "big" bad ol’ sins (drinking, being gay and sexual issues in general, smoking, gambling, etc) but has a clear record of indifference, silence and impotence when it comes to the important stuff Jesus spoke of in clear terms.

        The church’s powerlessness is clearly manifest in that its puppets feel the need to legislate morality and eliminate threats through the power of law rather than being the "salt of the earth" and "drawing all men" to Jesus by example and through the power of agape. How can you possibly expect anyone to respect or take a group like thatseriously?

        You cannot even agree among yourselves on basic personal Biblical truths and dogma and you wander around the land of doctrine like the Jews in the wilderness: one faction says you can loose your salvation, the other group says nay to that; one faction worships Mary and angels and the others say that is blasphemy; one group thinks Sunday is The Day, another group thinks it is Saturday; one group is ever ready to get gathered up together in the clouds, others say that is foolishness.

        You are too immature to sort out and agree among yourselves on some very fundamental concepts, and yet you all have the audacity to portray yourselves as oracles of the Creator so you can impose your prejudices on the populace? Absurdity!

        I do not demand that the "church" be silent on moral issues, on the contrary, I hold you to the same measure as your (claimed) Lord and Master: If you are going to down the legalistic road and be taken seriously as the keepers of moral "compasses" you aspire to be and to expect any spiritual empowerment from the Jehovah of the Bible, you have a duty to decry ALL sin as wrong! (Not just your "pet sins").

        So rather than demonstrating and carrying signs only when a shipload of gays call to port, you must move to demonstrate against any ships condoning cohabiting heterosexual couples and must demonstrate to limit access to tourist accommodations by such "sinners".

        The same moral "compass" that points to the wrongs of gambling would dictate that most derivatives and many other financial vehicles are simply a form legalised gambling and the "church" must oppose irresponsible and sinful behaviour of banks and the financial industry. If a politician is caught lying to the people (i.e. breaking a campaign promise) the "church" needs to be on it with both feet.

        If a government proves to be poor stewards of the country’s resources, the "church" has a duty to publicly decry such sinful irresponsibility, expose their sins and move to remove them from power.

        But, in truth the "church" really does not care about application of their "moral compass" to everyday life. The church only cares about protecting its territory.

        Here is what the "church" needs to apologise for: The truth is that the "church" only gets its hackles up about a fairly small menu of so called "sins" and gives a pass on  – and often condones and facilitates – a host of other sins. Even as our resources were being squandered by succesive governments, the preachers went to the Prayer Breakfasts and blessed each and every MLA rather than calling them down for their greed and irresponsible leadership.(Not once have I heard the "church" call a politician to repent of his deceit or wickedness.) It is a part of their "moral compass" duty but they are pretty derelict in carrying out that duty.

        Ever go to a church "fellowship" supper and witness the horrid examples of gluttony taking place there? I could probably retire if I had a dollar for every time I heard a member say things like "Ohhh! I am stuffed!" or "Igot to loosen my belt a notch so I can fit in some of Sister Sophie’s cassava cake".

        I could go on an on with an indictment, but by now I am sure you get the picture. Before the "church" is qualified to operate on society and excise the perceived evils there, you need to get your priorites in order.  If you could do that, the Bible then promises you will be the effective "witnesses" He seeks and you will exert a supernatural influence on your fellow man and the church will draw all men to serve its Leader. But it does not because of its overinflated sense of self worth and its laziness. So it relies on coercion and the rule of law to further its agenda. That is a pretty sick "church", I’d say.

        Contrary to what you wrote, Christ’s whole ministry was dedicated to training a small group of people on the higher principles of supernaturally empowered service to their Creator so that they could better serve their fellow man and in turn make disciples of others and build the true Church.

        Jesus’ most severe castigation was reserved for the religious leaders of the day who cared more about preserving their power than loving people. (Sound familiar?) Wonder what He would say to the Pharisees of our land now?

        • Anonymous says:

          You have now resorted to distorting the points I made.

          "FYI, it is not the least "immature" to have an opposing view, it is called the right of free speech".

          The immaturity I clearly explained was in taking the position that the church was not entitled to express its view onthese issues, or at least not publicly. It has never been suggested by the church or me that no one is entitled to hold an opposing view. This is no Inquisition.  A number of posters have taken the stance that the church is not entitled to express a opposing view but should be silent on what they deem to be "political" matters and confine any view to the four corners of their churches. In other words, it is they should wish to curtail the church’s freedom of speech and not vice versa.  

          "Contrary to what you wrote, Christ’s whole ministry was dedicated to training a small group of people on the higher principles of supernaturally empowered service to their Creator so that they could better serve their fellow man and in turn make disciples of others and build the true Church."

          This is not contrary to what I wrote but is consistent if incomplete. There is absolutely no doubt at all that Jesus’ teaching contains an ethical element. You are clearly seeking to obscure that by using the words "serve" as if this somehow displaces morality.  

          It is fine to debate these issues and we can disagree without being disagreeable and casting nasty aspersions on the motives and integrity of individuals merely because they hold a different view. Let us focus on the issues instead.

          • Dred says:

            With all due respect you have no clue what you are talking about.

            The church and more specifically the pastors of these churchs exert undue influence over their congregation to basically FORCE their congregation to sign petitions for the church to tout in front of Politicians saying "see what we can do in a heart beat". Politicians then are scared to make decisions because of the fall out not because the decision is right or wrong but because of what it could mean to them.

            Here’s a case in point. Big Mac and his glorious announcement of getting rid of Pirates Week. Where was it delivered? In a church no less. What does one have to do with the other? I’ll tell you. The church wanted it gone. So the church is using it’s influence on politicians to dictate Cayman policy and that’s wrong on every level.

            Now if you are too dimwhitted to see this it’s because well you’re a follower. No one sector should dictate for all of Cayman. Politicians should have the ability to bring forth measures they believe are good for the Islands. Big Mac is doing is right by putting it to the vote to see what the larger community thinks and that’s the right way. But the churchs did not want it to go that far so the rushed to get 1200 sigs by creating undue influence over the members of their congregation. And yes they did. I have a family member who was coerced into signing. She thought it should go to the vote but was coerced to sign. She said she had friends in the congreagation who felt the same way but did the same thing.

            So don’t talk crap to me.

            • Anonymous says:

              Unlike you, Dred, I do know what I am talking about and am not relying on second and third hand information. In my church no one was coerced into signing anything.  No undue influence was exerted. People signed or didn’t sign exercising their own conscience.  Some people chose not to. I have no reason to believe that anything different happened anywhere else.

              The persons who comprise the church will have their own views on what they consider is in the best interests of the Island and they should be free to express that view whether by petition, demonstration or otherwise.

               "Big Mac is doing is right by putting it to the vote to see what the larger community thinks and that’s the right way".

              You are clearly very naive. I have no doubt at all that Mr. Bush wants to introduce casinos but he also wants to continue play the pious churchman. He wants to be able to say THEY made me do it. This is where the referendum comes in.

              This issue is a matter of national importance and therefore an appropriate issue for a CONSTITUTIONAL referendum on which, under the Constitution, REGISTERED VOTERS would vote. Mr. Bush is well aware of that but is proposing a referendum among RESIDENTS. This is obviously because he feels that there is a good chance that the majority of Caymanians will not agree, but if he includes RESIDENTS his chances increase substantially. He is therefore deliberately and cynically manipulating the process in an attempt to obtain the desired result while at the same time scoring points with naive souls like yourself who for some strange reason believe that someone with the track record of a dictator is suddenly interested in seeking out the will of the people, and retaining the support of the naive church folk who are convinced that he is one of them. 

              By all means have a referendum, but have a proper one.

              The wider problem is that this would set a very bad precedent for the future when other matters of national interest arise and residents will then feel that they equally have a right to vote.

              You are clearly veryyoung, but with some more life experience everything I have said will become clear to you.             


          • Anonymous says:

            Ok. Let’s focus on the issue: The issue is that the UCJCI is beyond hypocritical. Moreover, since none of their allegations have been proven and the jury is out on all of their dire prophesies, then they are scaremongering, wasting their time and ours by tilting at windmills and crying wolf in the name of "morality".

            Ok. Let’s discuss ethics: If they are so "moral" on this issue, where are they on the issue of general immorality (Stuff like renting hotel rooms to non-married cohabiting heterosexual couples?) Lots of such fornicating going on in those rooms but no letter from the UCJCI on this. How about lies being told to the populace by politicians? Surely the UCJCI must be aware of at least one broken campaign promise, no? Where are the letters? Poor financial stewardship is sharply rebuked in the Bible but the UCJCI is pretty quiet about government waste. I have already touched on the "church’s"  near-satanic silence during the Cuban refugee boat crisis. They seem to overlook the everyday important issues and only get their ecclesiastical knickers in a knot about stuff that will get them some press coverage and make ’em look all goody-goody.

            Seems like demagoguery to me: Just attack the juicy issues that can get them some publicity as the big, bold defenders of the faith and protect their power. Might gain them some converts, galvanise their membership, and it could be a good issue to put some extra $$ in the offering plate on Sunday. Makes them look pretty unethical ( translate that "non-Christian") to me.

            I do not think they should be silent on political matters. On the contrary, with all the lack of ethics swirling around us I think the UCJCI should be an advocate for the right all the time, not just stick their holy noses into things at random times.  I think they are silent when it is convenient to be silent. This is a strong indictment as to their ethics and lack of any consistent moral compass. Why a letter now? Where was the UCJCI when the grits hit the fan on other political issues with strong moral implications?

            Seems that the "salt of the earth" only gets shaken out of the box by gays and gambling, huh?

            The UCJCI is certainly "entitled" to express their views on the issue; that is freedom of speech and the press. But, by their "selective vision", lack of compassion to those truly needy and their baseless scaremongering they have not earned any ethical brownie points or credibility to do so. So I think they should just shut their yap before they look any sillier and hypocritical than they are looking right now.

            How about that for plain talk on the issue?

            • Anonymous says:

              The United Church is not just making allegations. It has supported its statements by references to actual studies. The proof is in the actual  experience of those countries which have permitted gambling. The points the article made were not simply based on morality.

              Actually YOU are being hypocritical. You wish the church to speak only when you feel it will support your view. The fact that you have thrown in not publicly objecting to renting hotel rooms to non-married couples is completely disingenuous. You would have been the first to write an outraged post that the church should mind its own business and cannot impose its morality on everyone else blah, blah, blah.  If they complained about a govt’s lack of fiscal prudence, and it happened to be the govt. you are supporting, you would say that they should keep out of politics.   

              Gambling casinos, unlike unmarried couples shacking up in hotel rooms, is not a private matter but will have a serious negative impact on our entire social fabric. You don’t wish to hear that so you are figuratively stopping your ears and screaming at the top of your lungs hoping to distract attention from the real issue to the supposed failings of the churches.  Indeed you have declared that the issue IS whether the UCJCI isn’t consistent. That is not of course the issue at all.       


        • Anonymous says:

          well written…!!

  14. Anonymous says:

    Churchy scare-mongering: If it were not for scaremongering, most so-called "Christian" denominations would be as extinct as the dinosaurs. This posting by the United Church in Jamaica and the Cayman Islands tells me that their organisation is as capable as any religion when it comes to dispensing half-truths and scaremongering.

    All of the claptrap and doom the United Church is dispensing can be avoided by one simple stipulation: The simple way to avoid all the Church’s dire prophesies is to prohibit local residents from gambling in the local casinos. So now that we have negated a substantial part of their argument and rendered most of the article as non-applicable and invalid, let’s take a broader look at the issue:

    If we prohibit locals from gambling we will have NO increased crime. No increase in the levels of theft, forgery, embezzlement, fraud, domestic violence, assault, child neglect, suicide, prostitution, vandalism, breaking and entering, and home invasion. Gee, after another look at their doomsday list, it is quite apparent that they are pretty good at trying to scare people, huh? Of course prohibition of local gambling by way of new legislation might spell an end to church raffles and bingo. (Oops!)

    Granted we have to be wary of corruption, but we already have reason to be wary of criminal influence in our society. Politics and politicians are much more fertile grounds for criminal influence that casinos will ever be. If the current unveiling of abuse of power in the Roman Catholic Church is any indication, the clergy is not immune to corruption either.

    Hey dudes: Here is another way to look at things: The truth is that if we properly capitalise on gambling by way of excellent legislation, meaningful application fees, significant license fees and our fair share of the profits by way of royalties, we could have good potential to reduce crime and improve society. How? By applying the windfall of dollars that casinos could bring to better education and funding scholarships,investing in youth and social programmes, and increased funding for law enforcement. What say ye to this United Church? You see, there are two sides to every argument but churches never want us to hear an alternative view. Too much enlightenment is a very bad thing in religious circles. (Yes, I do realise that the ""excellent legislation" part of my foregoing discourse is a pretty far-fetched concept given what Gina and the DOE have done with the new ConLaw.)

    I would opine that gambling is no more dangerous to society than letting religion and churches rule. Taliban? Crusades? Witch burnings?  Unspeakably horrific religious persecutions? All the result of too much power being given to the churches. So I get a bit touchy when churches stick their holy noses in politics.

    Hey, United Church: I can "cut and paste" and take stuff out of context too. (Although not as well as you religious folks can because you have vast experience at taking things out of context when referring to scripture. But I digress.)

    OK, here are some facts:

    The study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the one referred to by the United Church folks, clearly indicates that employment rates increased in over 80% of the areas reported in the study. A significant statistic, but one that the Churchites would not dare have us be privy to.

    The study also stated: "Several academic studies have explored the impact of casinos on local employment. While their conclusions are somewhat mixed, the studies generally suggest that casinos do increase employment in the local area (or at least they do not lead to an employment decrease)."

    The study used by the United Church also stated (referring to a list counties in the study) :The figures reveal that employment in (Warren and Tunica Counties, Mississippi) significantly increased since the adoption of casino gaming." The study went on to say: "Employment in rural Massac County markedly increased when the casino began operations and has increased steadily since then."  And further stated: "The employment-to-population ratio for Massac County increased nearly 13 percentage points since the introduction of casino gaming."

    Uh, you kinda overlooked some important stuff there, United Church, don’t you think? Why? Afraid of the truth? The WHOLE truth.

    40 of the 50 states in the USA have legalised some form of gambling. (They know something we don’t?)

    A very good, scientific study is entitled "Does the Presence of Casinos Increase Crime? An Examination of Casino and Control Communities?" by Stitt, Nichols and Giacopassi.  The study effectively negates the United Church scaremongers blubbering about increased crime being an inevitable result of casino gambling: "The analysis yielded few consistent findings across the test and control communities. Crime rates increased significantly in some casino communities, some remained relatively stable, and others decreased. The authors conclude that crime does not inevitably increase with the introduction of a casino into a community, but that the effects of casinos on crime appear to be related to a variety of variables which are only poorly understood."

    If you do your research you will find that one factor stands alone in determining whether introduction of casino gambling will result in an increase in serious crimes in the community: That factor is whether or not locals are allowed to gamble in local casinos. In all the studies I am familiar with (and they are many), in every case that locals are NOT allowed to gamble at local casinos, there is no evidence of a gambling-connected increase in crime and several areas experienced a reduction in crime due to increased government revenue being spent on law-enforcement.

    To give some deference to the United Church views – myopic and closed-minded as they may be – there IS a dire warning that needs to be heard: In virtually all communities where local residents ARE allowed to gamble at local casinos, there IS consistently an increase in serious crime locally! Read this warning again and shout it from the mountain tops. I repeat: If we allow casinos and allow locals access to gambling here, we are asking – no, begging for – untold trouble!

    So, there you have it. We can be wise and choose to welcome casino gambling and implement gambling laws that have the potential to bring in lots of money into our land with little social risk, via prohibiting local access to the casinos. Or we can be really, really stupid and bring in the casinos but neglect to prohibit locals from gambling and thereby sentence our way of life to its death.  Ok fellow Caymanians, which is it: Smart or stupid? For once on a big and important issue can we choose smart for a change?

    I say: Allow gambling but prohibit local access to the casinos. We would have much to gain and little to loose except for our budget deficit. So we get the Churchites mad, so what? What do they contribute anyway? Certainly not the whole truth, if their treatment of this issue is any indication of their inclinations.

    What amazes me is that the United Church did not care to suggest disallowing locals access to the casinos as a wise choice. They just cared about promoting their narrow and recklessly irresponsible agenda. Now here is the acid test to tell if the churches on this island really have any collective sense worthy of mention: They can treat the gambling issue like Pastor Al and his CMA minions did in regard to the Constitution; they were so caught up in their homophobic hysteria and anti-gay-marriage zeal that they cared little about any other part of the proposed constitution except for how it might relate to dudes marrying other dudes. Rather than urging their members to push for an excellent document inclusive of a Bill of Rights, they just cared about getting their "churchy" stuff enshrined into law. So we have no Bill of Rights thanks in some significant measure to Pastor Al and the churches of the island.

    So, now on this gambling issue, if it looks like it might pass the churches can act dumb (which may not be acting at all) and they can oppose gambling entirely, or they can come on board and suggest wise ways to implement gambling and protect society. So churches: Which will it be? Wise or stupid? (And the answer is?)

    • Anonymous says:

      In accusing the Church of lying, which part of "… SUMMARISED that … the net effect of gaming could be POSITIVE or negative, depending on …" did you not understand? And the fact they named the Study so you could read the whole thing? It was clear they cautioned that the negative "POSSIBILITY should not be overlooked here" in response to the purely positive affects the proponents of gambling were promoting. 

    • Anonymous says:

      I think if you read Part I of the Constitution entitled "Bill of Rights, Freedoms and Responsibilities" you will find that we do have a Bill of Rights. It will come into effect in November, 2012.  

      I also think that you need to accept that other people are entitled to hold different views from your own and should not be subject to abuse merely for having them. Having a different view does not mean that other person is a knave or a fool. What you may consider an "excellent document" others may consider it not so much. It is not "recklessly irresponsible" to stand on a point of principle or to make values-based decisions.

      Your problem is that you are focussed only on "bringing lots of money in" and you don’t care about people. It is quite fine with you if people’s lives are ruined so long as they don’t live here and we won’t have to deal with them.    

  15. Durrrr says:

    The fact of the matter is that gambling is already here, so none of the Church’s arguments hold any water.


    And surely even the Church would accept that regulated gambling is a better choice than the status quo (see the alleged numbers seller who was shot and killed in West Bay earlier this year).


    I for one hope that Mac doesn’t go back on his plans for November referendum, and I also hope there are enough people on this Island who can think for themselves, instead of voting like sheep because the Church tells them to.


    Either that, or perhaps it’s time for the RCIPS to start enforcing the law (and by that I mean no more Church raffles, no more sea swims or golf/fishing/domino tournaments with cash prizes, no more LIME/Digicel text message promotions). I think it was Abe Lincoln who said that ‘the best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly’

  16. Honest Dave says:

    Can someone arrange a gay cruise or even suggest gay marriage to distract this lot while we get casinos sorted out?

    • Anonymous says:

      Capital idea!  Perhaps a call by a casino cruise ship filled with gay newlyweds is in order?

    • Anonymous says:

      What hypocrisy. When the church expressed its views on the gay cruise ship issue you same people were screaming that supposedly the church ought to be concerned less with gays and more with (other) social ills. Now that church (as it has always done) is sounding a cautionary note about the social ills that accompany gambling,  you are saying they should concern themselves about gay cruise ships.    

      • Turtle's Head says:

        I tend to leave hypocrisy to the Church.  They have been experts for centuries.

  17. Anonymous says:

    How ironic it is that that the main “legitimate” source of revenue for Cayman is the hedge funds industry which is little more than a gigantic crap shoot, legal or not.

    If greed is so bad, the church should be against free enterprise and capitalism generally. Cuba has also done “just fine” without these evils.

    Why is the church wasting so much political capital trying to keep something illegal upon which there is no definitive guidance in the bible? Why not spend some time lobbying to criminalise some of the things upon which there is definitive guidance? Seven of the ten commandments are perfectly legal in western societies. I don’t recall any pastor starting a campaign to criminalise adultery, or the making/worshiping of “false” idols, or disrespecting your parents, or outlawing working on a Sunday, or taking the lords name in vain, or coveting my neighbour’s ass.

    And what about the separation of church and state? What gives this church the right to dictate legislation for people of all denominations and faiths?

    Concentrate on keeping your own flock out of other people’s casinos and your own nose out of other people’s business. You have no moral authority whatsoever over anyone that doesn’t go to your church.

    • Lachlan MacTavish says:

      Over the past 3 decades the leaders of the churches of The Cayman Islands have become more and more involved in the politics of the country. IMHO the leaders of the churches are hurting the country and the people more than helping. There is "no flexibility only one hard set of rules". Leaders must be flexible, must be able to look at all sides of an issue, must be able to make very hard decisions thatmay sometimes contradict personal beliefs in order for the people to benefit. That would make church leaders unqualified for political discussion. 

      • Anonymous says:

        Don’t talk rubbish, Lachlan. The church has always been involved and is less so these days that it ever was.  Back in the days of the Vestry, clergymen sat in govt.  

        • Suns of seamen says:

          Yes the so call  "righteous vestrymen" who ran govt back then who stole poor people land and property divided it up with some of the grand parents of our present day land barons. Mr Roy Bodden should write a book on that chapter of our history and maybe some of the offspring of these self righteous and pious vestrymen would get off their religious piousness  and high horse and lofty perches in our society.  They were the land version of our other infamous guests to these shores.

        • Lachlan MacTavish says:

           13:10……I have to respectfully disagree. Big difference……apple’s and oranges….back then church vestry decan’s etc. would sometimes get elected of office. IMO and experience I saw no manipulation or interference with Government policies then. Today, I see church leaders with hard no change doctrines manipulating and trying to influence bills and policy. My point was, due to the hard no change view of the world that the religious leaders have, which may not be in the best interests of the country, renders them unsuitable to be involved in the peoples government.

          • Anonymous says:

            Lachlan, you were not around in the days of the Vestry (which pre-dates the 1962 Constitution).

            • Lachlan MacTavish says:

               Yes, you are correct ….I was not around….I did some reading….I thought there was still Vestry in the early 70’s. I stand corrected there. I still stand firmthough that the present day church leaders cannot objectively be involved in politics.

              • Anonymous says:

                I am not sure what you mean by "cannot objectively be involved in politics". Does expressing one’s view on a national issue mean that you are "involved in politics"? The church is entitled to have its view heard same as anyone else. That view may or may not prevail, but it is ridiculous to demand that they be silent. Every group will have its own perspective. The Chamber of Commerce’s views willbe derived from what is good for its member businesses. They are concerned about employees, the environment, social impacts except in so far as it may harm their business interests. Yet no one demands that the Chamber shut up, or state that it "cannot objectively be involved in politics" when it weighs in on an issue. You are seeking to hold the church to an unreasonable standard to which no other group is held.   

  18. Scrooge McDuck says:

    My understanding is the proposal was: casinos if brought forward would not allow participation in gambling by locals, and instead would be directed at the tourism industry as another attraction.  We’re not talking Las Vegas or Atlantic City here but a reasonable way for government to raise revenues. Nice of church representatives however to point out what they feel is something which exploits the weaker and vulnerable members of society and transfers wealth from same to organized groups outside of the jurisdiction where they operate.

    • Anonymous says:

      God forbid the church loses its monopoly on exploiting the weaker and vulnerable members of society, or that anything gets in the way of stacking cash up in their collection plates.

      God forbid indeed.  (Haven’t I read that somewhere?)

    • Anonymous says:

      well said…the many scam churches of this region are more of a threat to the poor and vulnerable than any casion could ever be…..

  19. Anonymous says:

    Everyone knows there is gambling going on all over the island. Nothing stops me opening an account online with a bookmaker and placing bets that way. Nothing stops me playing the stock market, which is betting whether a share will go up in price or down in price. The Cayman Islands owes it’s current existence to the fact that so many hedge funds are domiciled here – these are vehicles in which someone invests other people’s money in stock and products that will increase in value. Is that not also gambling? So all you bright people of the United Church of Jamaica and the Cayman Islands…. do you offer any solutions to the fact that gambling is rampant and the government are looking to effectively tax it… nope… well let me make one…. follow the Bahamian model – don’t allow residents into the casino. XXXXX

    • Durrrr says:

      You were doing well until your last line.

      • Anonymous says:

        The "last line" was the most significant, Durrr. 

        Allowing local access to casino gambling would in all likelihood make every one of the prophesies of doom the United Churchites detailed above come true.

        In virtually all jurisdictions where locals are allowed access to local casinos there is a statistically significant increase in social ills and serious crime related directly to gambling. In places where locals are not allowed access to casino gambling there is no such increase. Any net increase in crime in the latter areas is related to the increase in population and commuting or imported employees.

        To chance even a modest increase in serious crime in country already unable to effectively address the current crime situation is a gamble only a moron totally devoid of any sense would even suggest taking.

        Bring on the casinos, but indeed restrict them to visitors only.

        • durrrr says:

          Do we really want to introduce segregation in Cayman? I think it’d set a bad precedent for there to be any public places in the Cayman Islands that Caymanians cannot legally visit

      • Anonymous says:

        the XXXX after my last line was deleted by the editor. Trust me I finished on a crescendo.

    • anonymous says:

      Are you crazy? don’t allow residents into the casino!

      You dummy, then you are developing for the offshore people and not yourself!

      A Casino won’t work. there has to be a national lottery accross the board for the local people to enjoy and benefit from. they would lynch McKeeva if he approved a Casino. He is opt to approve a national lottery as the PPM is profiting from it greatly.

  20. Anonymous says:

    But religion is at its core nothing more than a gamble either…..there are so many religions, which one should we choose?

    should i believe in monotheism? Polytheism? Maybe i should practice henotheism?  Or be agnostic? or an atheist? maybe monolatry?

    wow…so many choices…and most of them followed by such devoted addicts that decry the chance of the other cults possibly having a chance of being the right one

    rolling the dice….whether at a table, or at an altar…….there’s no difference….they’re both looking for your dollar…..they also both offer great promises of tremendous sanctuary and salvation from total desperation

    when religion gets involved in the rule of law….bad things happen……thats why temples, places of worship, etc exist……say what you like inside….but dont preach unless approached……

    • Anonymous says:

      Until you are eyes are opened and you experience the one true and living God it will indeed seem like a gamble.

      The law is itself based on Judeo-Christian ethics.

  21. Ali Louya says:

    The complete lack of biblical reference to back up this policy tirade is very telling.

    • Anonymous says:

      Perhaps you should look up the meaning of "tirade".

      The article refers to various principles which are found in the bible.  Would you also conclude that rape is OK because there is no specific commandment against it, or would you refer back to basic principles and apply your common sense? 

      • Disrali says:

        LOL, yet it does refer to murdering people for cutting their side burns or cursing your father.

        ANd let us not forget in Sodom when everyone happily allows 2 daughters to be g8ng rap8d

        I always find it funny when people claim they are not interpretign what the bible means

      • Gladstone says:

        Actually I wouldn’t rape as I respect women not because it doesn’t say so in the bible.

        Some people!

  22. Anonymous says:

    "Organised crime has a big stake in the gambling industry."

    Maybe, but while a licenced and regulated casino might be a target for organized crime, at least it is better than unlicenced and unregulated gambling that is currently conducted by "disorganized crime".  Plus there is the upside of massive casino fees to support the Caymanian infrastructure. 

    Drunk drivers and speeders are attracted to driving cars, but that’s no reason to outlaw driving.  Regulation of any activity is rarely 100% effective but that’s no reason not to try, especially when the alternative is to allow the activity to proceed wholly unregulated in any event.

    Besides Caymanians, what do you want?  Secure government jobs and social programs funded by casino revenues, or less jobs and more poverty combined with the knowledge that you have bowed to the will of the United Church.  I’d take the money, personally.  The church doesn’t feed my family.

  23. Anonymous says:

    The moment a government forbids something, they create an income for organized crime.

    There are already lotteries on the island, so make it legal so it can be controlled.

    One third of the world calles themselves christian. Why do they need to force two thirds of the world to live according to their standards ?

    It is unbelievable that people that believe in talking snakes can have so much control over this country.

    Are caymanians stupid ?    I think they are.     But there is a chance for improvement. Get up, and go on the street, revolutionize your country as the europeans did 70 years ago. Don’t get stuck in the previous century. You look like a fool internationally.

    Foreigners laugh about the conservative and naive people here.

    I am ashamed . . . . . .


  24. Lachlan MacTavish says:

    With all due respect, if the writers of this viewpoint were more in touch with their congregation and the fabric of The Cayman Islands they would know that gambling is rampant in Cayman now and has been for decades. The social care for the addicted is non existent right now. With fees , licensing and new income the social services that the islands require would finally get funding and attention. The churches in Cayman have only hard lines and cannot look at all sides of an issue.

  25. Anonymous says:

    lol could it also be that less people will give to the church?Untill the church can offer this "sinking island" a way out of the financial depression i say stay out of this one.

    Churches hold raffles all the time…please explain the diference?


    • Anonymous says:

      The United Church does not hold raffles at all at any time. There is no need to explain the difference.

      The church does offer a way out. Gambling is not it. It will only lead to more problems.

      • XPat says:

        Isn’t there a little Christian concept called "free will"?….

        • Anonymous says:

          What’s free will got to do with it? Freewill simply means that humans have been made with the capacity to make choices and have not been programmed so that they are only capable of acting in a particular way. Clearly there are good choices and bad choices. Just to illustrate its irrelevance, does freewill mean that the church should approve of or be silent about  any act no matter how heinous? Total red herring.

          • Anitque Rist says:

            Free will includes the ability to decide to ignore the churchmen when their political goals drive them to say irrational things in the name of what they think god wants the government to do.  If there is a god, I highly doubt that the churchmen of the Cayman Islands can read his or her mind, or that they are qualified or capable of speaking on behalf of god.  More likely they are pushing a political agenda for their own good. 

            The churchmen are and should be free to speak THEIR minds about what THEY think the government should do, but when they wave the banner of the united church and go on to speak under it, thereby pronouncing the absurd proposition that "I SPEAK FOR GOD", they lose all credibility. 

            Churchmen: go have faith in your church, but when you enter the political realm please leave the proxy-for-god hypocricy in the bin.

      • Disrali says:

        Yep it certainly helped the Romans when they voluntarily and compulsarily were converted to Christianity from the true faith of Polythesism.

        They were destroyed within 2 hundred years of it

    • Anonymous says:

      The United Church does not "hold raffles", or support them.

  26. The Plain Truth says:

    This add should apply to Jamicans.   Jaaican lottery is te only lottery game thatis played in Cayman thee times a day and six days a week.