Arguments against Sunday racing are weak, unfounded

THE EDITOR, Sir:

Congrats are in order for the Point-Counterpoint feature on the editorial spread. Regarding the Friday, February 3 issue, I have to agree with columnist Orville Higgins, albeit reluctantly, because his previous pro-Lawrence Rowe and pro-Captain Burrell pieces had impressed me as merely controversial and lacking in substance.

In this instance, his rebuttal of the Jamaica Council of Churches' stance was as good as Peter Espeut's was weak. If Espeut is to defend anti-gambling based on mathematical logic, why stop at business models that stack the odds against punters who have freedom of choice?

The same model applies to the insurance industry where, based on demographic statistics, highly paid actuaries calculate the odds that the buyer of their products will be utterly unlikely to succumb to whatever malaise he or she is buying indemnity against.

That deck, Mr Espeut, is not only stacked against the buyer, in supposedly well-intentioned instances, it is legislated by Government. In others, it is demanded by business, such as banking.

Fuzzy, incomplete logic more often than not results from faith-based proponents, of which Mr Espeut is an erudite and engaging example, attempting to cut the cloth of reality to suit their subjective visions.

L. NELSON

Kingston 19