Critique to LBCA’s stand on NLTP Act

With due respect to the churches and individuals, I humbly state that no amount of arguments put forward in favor of continuation of the NLTP Act will justify its being in force in the State for the reason that it has been farcical and a mockery from the moment it came into force. In fact, immediately after the Act was enforced hundreds of black marketeers called, ‘bootleggers’ were born who, for the State police, are called anti-socials and for churches; “sinners”. Today, these sinners and anti-socials are in thousands and multiplying ever. This situation is what a true Christian church should be concern about instead of behaving like the pharisees and the Sadducees who Jesus rebuked for their self-righteous attitude.
I find the argument of LBCA who said, “What will it benefit the Nagas if some earn huge amounts of money by legalizing liquor?” This is a childish question because by legalizing liquor the ever growing sinners or bootleggers will disappear. Are not the churches aspiring for a society free from bootleggers and drug peddlers?
LBCA’s reasoning that “the best way to combat the menace of alcohol was through total prohibition coupled with sustained awareness campaign on its evils.” This is not a correct reasoning because logically speaking banning first and teaching it is what people call putting the cart before the horse. Even psychologically or educationally speaking, “banning first and teaching” is not only a wrong approach but also ineffective. To help children grow up strong and wise is not by preventing them but letting them choose the right thing from among the existing good and bad things in society. In Genesis, we read that “of all the fruits of the trees of the garden you can eat but of one tree you shall not eat justifies the truth of teaching methodology to achieve a genuine, wise and healthy generation.
“LBCA’s caution that prioritizing revenue from liquor over investing in human and natural resources would be a tragedy” is not only an emotional bombardment but another faulty reasoning because the rethinking on the matter of the government is not the revenue from liquor over other important State matters but it was only taking stock of the reality of the applicability and the workability of the Act itself as is manifested today. Therefore the contention of LBCA is called overlooking the issue instead of understanding the issue from rational view point. The reality is that the Act is a failure which everybody recognizes; even the churches recognizes it and therefore demands a rethinking.
And in regard to investing in human and natural resources, the question is, has the churches been pro people fighting for good roads, corrupt free governance and development of the people at all cost or not. I don’t think so because, in effect, the churches have been busy more in their own enrichment and not in the well-being of the society nor its believers.
Concluded
Jonas Yanthan