Are we against casino gambling or the government?
Freddie Kissoon column
Kaieteur News
January 22, 2007

Related Links: Articles on casinos
Letters Menu Archival Menu

I can understand the position of the churches, all types, Christian, Muslim and Hindu denominations, in the rejection of casino gambling. For them, like abortion, like legalisation of homosexual marriage, they are not in favour of these practices because for them these practices conflict with the fundamental tenets of religion. There is the beginning of a new day in Guyana with the participation of the Muslim and Hindu churches in social protest in Guyana.

No one in Guyana can besmirch the fantastic record of the Christian churches in the struggle for a democratic Guyana. To deny this would be a shameless act of human depravity. The Jesuits, the Catholic Church under the leadership of Bishop Benedict Singh, the Anglican Church under the direction of Bishop Randolph George and the Guyana Council of Churches including the role of Mr. Mike Mc Cormack. I may vehemently disagree these days with Mr. Mc Cormack but I would never de-recognise his pro-democracy role in the fight for a free Guyana.

The Muslim and Hindu spiritual leaders were indeed vocal in the bad old days but their record cannot and should not be compared with the Christian churches. Since 1992, with a perceived Indian Government in control of Guyana, the Muslim and Hindu high priests (with the exception of Swami Askrananda) do not seem to feel anything is wrong with the way Guyana is governed. It was a phenomenal sight to see them in protest action against the proposed casino legislation.

Religion, of course, is one of the factors that have preserved sanity among civilised people. Though I am not a religious person at all (my conceptualization of the human condition is more derived from the writings of the following philosophers - Kant, Nietzsche, Heidegger and Sartre), I believe no other institution is valuable in human life than religion.

But that should not translate to mean that religious people are good people. There is no connection between the intrinsic purpose or religion and those that are in charge of spreading the word of God, be it the Christian God, Allah or Lord Krishna.

If Ministers Clement Rohee and Dr. Desire Fox were insulting to the function of religion then that is a philosophical reflection and it may not have been intended at any particular church. I didn't read what the two Ministers said but why should Government Ministers apologise to a country's religious community if they use analytical condemnations of the faults of religion throughout history.

To say that religion has not had its atrocious and nasty moments when its actions conflicted with truth and human decency is to display crass ignorance of history and the history of modern civilization.

The evidence of the wrongs committed by all types of religions, be they in the East or in Western civilization, in the past or at the present moment, is simply overwhelming. There are Muslim scholars that do not believe a woman is equal to a man.

In the Hindu scriptures, there can be found scandalous remarks about dark colours. It is no accident that the worst type of racism that can be found in the world today is in the Hindu film industry. What did Shilpa Shetty and the Indian Government think they were doing quarreling about racism in the UK? The Hindi film industry of which Shetty is a part is a nasty, racist world that denigrates dark skin.

In the US, the Religious Right poses a fascist danger to the world. Imagine people in the churches in the Southern US actually praise President Bush for his war policies. If the Ministers directed their remarks against specific persons in the hierarchy of certain churches in Guyana, then maybe an apology is appropriate. But I see nothing wrong if a Minister of Government laments the convenient interests of religion in Guyana.

On too many negative developments, Guyanese religious leaders have remained silent, the worst case being on racial voting of which many of them are willing participants.

This article is not on religion but that long digression was necessary. My point is that I can understand the reason for the religious community coming out against the proposed casino legislation but I fail to see how others like Christopher Ram, Mike Mc Cormack and the Stabroek News could argue against the legalisation of casinos in Guyanese hotels on the flimsy evidence they have used to counter the government.

All the arguments of those listed here is that casino is a vehicle for narcotic perpetrators and money launderers.

Why aren't other occupations avenues for the same vices? The trade unions in the US have historically been involved with mob leaders. If casino gambling brings rotten money then why don't we carry on a boycott campaign against Celine Dion who has a five-year contract to perform in Las Vegas? She is getting dirty money, isn't she? It seems that according to Mr. Ram, the Stabroek News and Mr. Mc Cormack, Guyana's duty is to save the world even though we cannot save ourselves.

Mr. Ram says there is a connection between mafia people and Suriname's casino operations. Suriname has a more stable economy than Guyana's. Mr. Ram says Venezuela's casino business relations have the same touch. Guyana is receiving oil aid from that country.

Ram cites South Korea. This is one of the top class Third World economies. Mr. Ram points to the Philippines, again a better economy than Guyana. Not to mention the leading industrial giants that have casino gambling like the UK, the US, and France.

We are told that Prime Minister Patrick Manning plans to outlaw casino gambling in Trinidad. But what Ram, the Stabroek News and Mr. Mc Cormack didn't tell us is the deluge of protest he encountered and the statistics that were thrown at him over the loss of employment by thousands. Manning was motivated by religious reasons. He never cited any criminal connection. And he has since backed down.

I repeat, if you hate the government, you may have a million reasons to do so but why make casino gambling your yardstick for judging the government. You can use more convincing targets.