Vicar Tells Poor To Shoplift

[Dave]

Vicar Tells Poor To Shoplift

Vicar tells poor to shoplift

A vicar has caused controversy by encouraging poor people to shoplift to feed their families.

Father Tim Jones said: "God's love for the poor and despised outweighs the property rights of the rich."

His comments, in his Christmas sermon at St Lawrence Church, York, have been slammed by police, church leaders and shopkeepers.

Fr Jones, 42, said life could be particularly hard for people such as those just out of jail who could not get benefits.

He added: "My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift. I do not offer such advice because I think that stealing is a good thing, or because I think it is harmless, for it is neither.

"I would ask that they do not steal from small family businesses but from large, national businesses, knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices.

"I would ask them not to take any more than they need, for any longer than they need.

"I offer the advice with a heavy heart and wish society would recognise that bureaucratic ineptitude and systematic delay has created an invitation and incentive to crime for people struggling to cope."

A spokesman for North Yorks Police said: "Shoplifting is a criminal offence and to justify this course of action under any circumstances is highly irresponsible."

Stephen Alambritis, of the Federation of Small Businesses, said: "We are appalled by the remarks from Father Jones. It is outrageous."

And the Archdeacon of York, the Venerable Richard Seed, said: "The Church of England does not advise anyone to break the law in any way."


My comment. It's easy to condemn what he is saying, and I'll beat you to the punch and say that the church is rich enough to feed the poor. But this man is someone that sees people as people and has an ethical and moral sense that are from the heart. He has put himself in the middle of a crossfire in order to make a statement on behalf of the poor. Now, once they get caught, get an arrest record and so on, life isn't going to be better, and in telling them to only steal from the stores he considers to be able to afford it, he increases that risk. I'm sure it's much easier to steal from the little guy. Anyway, I thought this was interesting, the anarchist vicar.

 

[jamescagney]

Vicar Tells Poor To Shoplift

A vicar has caused controversy by encouraging poor people to shoplift to feed their families.

Father Tim Jones said: "God's love for the poor and despised outweighs the property rights of the rich."

I think somewhere in the bible there's a list of 10 suggestions. I think one of them mentioned something about stealing.

 

[troubleluvsme]

My comment. It's easy to condemn what he is saying, and I'll beat you to the punch and say that the church is rich enough to feed the poor. But this man is someone that sees people as people and has an ethical and moral sense that are from the heart. He has put himself in the middle of a crossfire in order to make a statement on behalf of the poor. Now, once they get caught, get an arrest record and so on, life isn't going to be better, and in telling them to only steal from the stores he considers to be able to afford it, he increases that risk. I'm sure it's much easier to steal from the little guy. Anyway, I thought this was interesting, the anarchist vicar.

Wow...
I cannot believe this story! What happened to the ten commandments?
The Church should get into their own pockets before encouraging people to get into someone else's.

 

[troubleluvsme]

I think somewhere in the bible there's a list of 10 suggestions. I think one of them mentioned something about stealing.

exactly!

 

[Dave]

I think he is offering a short-term solution that will bring on more problems later, but I think he is also addressing a problem in a humanitarian way. I think by putting himself on the line in this way he draws attention to a problem and creates discussion.

jamescagney, my advice would be not to use the bible against him. Surely there is a verse in there somewhere that contradicts your interpretation of "thou shalt not steal". The real issue here, I feel, is whether or not this is good advice, not ethically, or according to dogma, but practically. Is this a good idea? I don't think so. And it lets people do what is convenient, which is steal, rather than apply for aid, or visit a soup kitchen, or whatever means are there in the community for poor.

But maybe this will open some eyes. If I was rich and living in a bubble, insulated from the reality that there are hungry people around me, I might get a little nervous to hear this vicar's statement, because it means things are getting serious. It is in the best interests of the wealthy not to let too many people get too hungry.

about interpretation of "thou shalt not steal" I think we could have a thread just for that, but I feel it is not absolutely defined as "you should not take what belongs to another person". We're all born into a racket that has been going on for thousands of years. Things are not equal. Paris Hilton has a singing career (sort of) because of the position she was born into (or maybe the positions she assumes in private) but that's a triumph of Capitalism.

Now the vicar is not saying, "burn down the bank" or anything like that. He's telling people to operate within the situation they are in. I just see his advice as ultimately short-sighted, because in my imagination, if I went to steal something I would be caught, prosecuted, have fines, an arrest record, and a whole new set of problems.

So I think his advice is a good wake-up call but would ultimately be foolish to follow.

 

[troubleluvsme]

about interpretation of "thou shalt not steal" I think we could have a thread just for that, but I feel it is not absolutely defined as "you should not take what belongs to another person". We're all born into a racket that has been going on for thousands of years. Things are not equal. Paris Hilton has a singing career (sort of) because of the position she was born into (or maybe the positions she assumes in private) but that's a triumph of Capitalism.

I consider taking anything that doesn't belong to you resulting in a financial loss to the rightful owner to be stealing.

I think that "time" can also be stolen and I've taken it as far as doing the math and showing my hourly employees that if they roll in to work ten minutes late everyday, leave ten minutes early, and take an extra ten minute lunch break they are costing me thirty minutes of time each day. When they get paid $38 per hour (including benefits) plus the taxes and insurance I pay, it adds up very quickly and I consider it to be theft. But, like you said, theft can be another thread entirely.

I agree with you that the vicar's comments will certainly open the eyes of many; it will make the community more aware of the dire situation that many face. I think it would be better advice to tell people to go to stores and ask if they could have some food in exchange for sweeping floors, taking out trash, or something like that.

 

[jamescagney]

jamescagney, my advice would be not to use the bible against him. Surely there is a verse in there somewhere that contradicts your interpretation of "thou shalt not steal".

I don't see this as using the Bible against him. Obviously the Bible says so many different things (sometimes contradicting other Bible sections), that it's easy to find quotes that appear to support just about anything you want. But this is the Ten Commandments we're talking about! These are supposed to be hard and fast, not optional or fuzzy or superseded by other "lesser" Bible quotes or parables.

I think it's worthy to discuss this advice in the context of the Ten Commandments. Because it's always made me angry that religious conservatives in the US have repeatedly and successfully demonized relativism, in favor of black and white, good vs. evil thinking that I find untrue, unhelpful and dangerous. (The usual attack against moral relativism is that it's supposedly a slippery slope that requires one to defend the actions of terrorists as morally OK.)

I'm not sure where the Bible itself stands on relativism / subjectivism. But the Bible and its followers generally seem to say that there is a set of knowable objective unchanging moral truths, including that "thou shalt never steal." But I think the advice to steal could be OK in a few select instances, such as the old example of needing to steal life-saving medicine you can't afford otherwise.

Christianity is built on a book whose contents and advice are 2000 years old and never really changes. Some of its advice now seems irrelevant and outdated, such as "don't eat shellfish." I think this is evidence that moral truths are relative and can change based on the time, place and situation. It upsets me that this concept of subjective / relative morality isn't more widely accepted.

 

[Dave]

I consider taking anything that doesn't belong to you resulting in a financial loss to the rightful owner to be stealing.

I think that "time" can also be stolen and I've taken it as far as doing the math and showing my hourly employees that if they roll in to work ten minutes late everyday, leave ten minutes early, and take an extra ten minute lunch break they are costing me thirty minutes of time each day. When they get paid $38 per hour (including benefits) plus the taxes and insurance I pay, it adds up very quickly and I consider it to be theft. But, like you said, theft can be another thread entirely.

I agree with you that the vicar's comments will certainly open the eyes of many; it will make the community more aware of the dire situation that many face. I think it would be better advice to tell people to go to stores and ask if they could have some food in exchange for sweeping floors, taking out trash, or something like that.

Well, I agree with the things you say. I know that if you go to Wal-Mart and ask to work for a loaf of bread they'll probably call the police, and it's going to be the small shop-owners that will extend credit to regular customers and maybe allow them to work. Where I work we do hire people on a casual basis like that to do the sorts of jobs you mention. Sometimes though I can't, and can't buy something that someone brings in to sell either. I look at each day as being profitable or not. If I made a few hundred dollars the day before, then I will find a job for the person, but that's rare. It's sad sometimes because people will bring in something that has sentimental value and that they think is valuable, often "a diamond" and you look at it and it's not a diamond, or the quality is so poor or it's so small that it isn't worth much anyway. So not only do we not buy it, but we have to tell them that it's not worth what they thought. I try to be kind about it, but I've been in places where I've seen someone told that grandma's wedding ring is a piece of glass, or those things that dad sent from overseas are tourist crap.

And we are fair and honest. It's not like a pawn shop where they will try to rip you off. We buy gold and pay the best price, because we can still make a profit on it. We also weigh it and tell the person what they are getting, usually per gram. If you go to a pawnshop they scoop it up and weigh it and tell you an amount. And most people taking gold to a pawnshop will take what is offered.

But you are right. I have known a lot of small-business owners that thought you just open the door and people start bringing you money. All of the cheating on time, or playing on the Internet while at work, and all those other things are not ethical, and not a good long-term plan. If your business does well that's good for your employees, and hopefully you have some good people that see it that way.

 

[Dave]

I don't see this as using the Bible against him. Obviously the Bible says so many different things (sometimes contradicting other Bible sections), that it's easy to find quotes that appear to support just about anything you want. But this is the Ten Commandments we're talking about! These are supposed to be hard and fast, not optional or fuzzy or superseded by other "lesser" Bible quotes or parables.

I think it's worthy to discuss this advice in the context of the Ten Commandments. Because it's always made me angry that religious conservatives in the US have repeatedly and successfully demonized relativism, in favor of black and white, good vs. evil thinking that I find untrue, unhelpful and dangerous. (The usual attack against moral relativism is that it's supposedly a slippery slope that requires one to defend the actions of terrorists as morally OK.)

I'm not sure where the Bible itself stands on relativism / subjectivism. But the Bible and its followers generally seem to say that there is a set of knowable objective unchanging moral truths, including that "thou shalt never steal." But I think the advice to steal could be OK in a few select instances, such as the old example of needing to steal life-saving medicine you can't afford otherwise.

Christianity is built on a book whose contents and advice are 2000 years old and never really changes. Some of its advice now seems irrelevant and outdated, such as "don't eat shellfish." I think this is evidence that moral truths are relative and can change based on the time, place and situation. It upsets me that this concept of subjective / relative morality isn't more widely accepted.

Well, Christianity takes it on the chin for being inflexible (or claiming to be infallible), and for changing. Of course one of the 10 Commandments is not just a random sentence in a book, as I suggested, but I still think it's best not to use something that you don't believe in as a tool to discredit someone.

Now, when you talk about conservatives being rigid, well, that's sort of where they are coming from. They are a different breed and see things in absolute terms. But we see the same lockstep thinking in liberals which has led to the horrible term "politically correct", which is used to dismiss and invalidate some ideas that are actually important. It puts the big issues on the same level as the very trivial.

 

[troubleluvsme]

Well, I agree with the things you say. I know that if you go to Wal-Mart and ask to work for a loaf of bread they'll probably call the police, and it's going to be the small shop-owners that will extend credit to regular customers and maybe allow them to work. Where I work we do hire people on a casual basis like that to do the sorts of jobs you mention. Sometimes though I can't, and can't buy something that someone brings in to sell either. I look at each day as being profitable or not. If I made a few hundred dollars the day before, then I will find a job for the person, but that's rare. It's sad sometimes because people will bring in something that has sentimental value and that they think is valuable, often "a diamond" and you look at it and it's not a diamond, or the quality is so poor or it's so small that it isn't worth much anyway. So not only do we not buy it, but we have to tell them that it's not worth what they thought. I try to be kind about it, but I've been in places where I've seen someone told that grandma's wedding ring is a piece of glass, or those things that dad sent from overseas are tourist crap.

And we are fair and honest. It's not like a pawn shop where they will try to rip you off. We buy gold and pay the best price, because we can still make a profit on it. We also weigh it and tell the person what they are getting, usually per gram. If you go to a pawnshop they scoop it up and weigh it and tell you an amount. And most people taking gold to a pawnshop will take what is offered.

But you are right. I have known a lot of small-business owners that thought you just open the door and people start bringing you money. All of the cheating on time, or playing on the Internet while at work, and all those other things are not ethical, and not a good long-term plan. If your business does well that's good for your employees, and hopefully you have some good people that see it that way.

Yeah, no kidding. Don't try bartering like that at Wal Mart or anyplace similar!
I believe in capitalism through and through, but big corporations like that just bother me so much. It is increasingly difficult for those with entrepreneurial aspirations to succeed.

That must be incredibly difficult, what you describe, to tell people that their treasured possessions are not worth what they had hoped; it almost leaves them in a worse state of despair. The pawn shops are awful, I've had tools stolen from my company that have ended up and resold at pawn shops, despite my name being written all over them. ugh.
You really summed up the point that I was trying to make about stealing time.
What is good for the company will pay off for the good employees in job security, bonuses, etc.

 

[jamescagney]

Well, Christianity takes it on the chin for being inflexible (or claiming to be infallible), and for changing.

I think that's one of the things I like least about Pope Ratzenberger, is that he appears to prefer going back to status quo of existing old dogma, rather than moving into a new era and listening to the concerns of dissenters in the clergy.

 

[down_in_albion]

Now, when you talk about conservatives being rigid, well, that's sort of where they are coming from. They are a different breed and see things in absolute terms. But we see the same lockstep thinking in liberals which has led to the horrible term "politically correct", which is used to dismiss and invalidate some ideas that are actually important. It puts the big issues on the same level as the very trivial.

Example?

 

[Dave]

Example?

Gender-neutralizing words, from postman to postal worker, is less important than whether all people have the same opportunity to work as a postal worker and receive the same pay and benefits, for example. Yet both are "PC".

 

[down_in_albion]

Gender-neutralizing words, from postman to postal worker, is less important than whether all people have the same opportunity to work as a postal worker and receive the same pay and benefits, for example. Yet both are "PC".

I hope it doesn't come across like I'm trolling you across threads, and this is OT, but I'm interested in your reasoning here.

Taking your example of gender-neutral language and employment discrimination. How are they mutually exclusive? The same people who argue for neutral language are also on the forefront of women's rights in other areas. It's not like by asking for such language it has any negative impact on equal work for equal pay. And I may be wrong, and someone more versed in feminist language studies can correct me, but most of these people see it as part of the same struggle, not necessarily of the same immediate importance but part of the same whole.

 

[Hellie]

I suddenly have a deep and profound respect for Vicars which for an aetheist is pretty cool.High five shoplifting Vicars.

 

[jamescagney]

I suddenly have a deep and profound respect for Vicars which for an aetheist is pretty cool.High five shoplifting Vicars.

Shoplifting Vicars, it's like two Morrissey songs involved in a car crash. If only it was a vicar in a tutu telling shoplifters of the world to unite.

 

[Dave]

I hope it doesn't come across like I'm trolling you across threads, and this is OT, but I'm interested in your reasoning here.

Taking your example of gender-neutral language and employment discrimination. How are they mutually exclusive? The same people who argue for neutral language are also on the forefront of women's rights in other areas. It's not like by asking for such language it has any negative impact on equal work for equal pay. And I may be wrong, and someone more versed in feminist language studies can correct me, but most of these people see it as part of the same struggle, not necessarily of the same immediate importance but part of the same whole.

I don't consider you as trolling me. I respect your opinion. Now we get to the tricky part though. I didn't say they were mutually exclusive. I don't mean to denigrate semantics either. I respect the power of language. Obviously the term postman is outdated if not archaic. I know two female postal workers and I wouldn't refer to either of them as "the mailman", but I still think that this is a theoretical issue with practical implications, rather than a practical issue. My point was exactly as you stated, that they are not of the same immediate importance. The job must first be available, and then we can train ourselves to see past the archaic language and remove it from our vocabulary.

I picked an example that I felt was clear and fair. By fair I mean I didn't search for the craziest and most unpopular pc concepts I could find. But the fact that "PC" is a pejorative term says it all really. What is wrong with being politically correct? Nothing. It's what we should strive for. But it's used in a derogatory way. You might have the most brilliant and fair idea but some conservative has only to call it "PC" and you are fighting an uphill battle.

That's largely because these same people allow themselves to be called "Anti-War" as if it were a disgrace and hang their heads when they are tagged "liberal". I'm talking about John Kerry, who could have unseated George Bush but allowed himself to be portrayed as anti-military when he was the one that actually went to war. That's a bit of a tangent, so I'll stop there for now.

 

[therightone]

My question is was he wearing a tutu??

 

[jamescagney]

But the fact that "PC" is a pejorative term says it all really. What is wrong with being politically correct? Nothing. It's what we should strive for. But it's used in a derogatory way. You might have the most brilliant and fair idea but some conservative has only to call it "PC" and you are fighting an uphill battle.

That's largely because these same people allow themselves to be called "Anti-War" as if it were a disgrace and hang their heads when they are tagged "liberal". I'm talking about John Kerry, who could have unseated George Bush but allowed himself to be portrayed as anti-military when he was the one that actually went to war.

Exactamundo.

This is why the Democrats are ineffectual idiots. It's partly because they're policy wonks and want to truly win discussions based on the merits of their assertions. That's kind of a good thing, it's the way the system should work ideally. Except that this strategy or lack thereof causes them to lose popular opinion to well orchestrated trickery again and again.

 

[down_in_albion]

I don't consider you as trolling me. I respect your opinion. Now we get to the tricky part though. I didn't say they were mutually exclusive. I don't mean to denigrate semantics either. I respect the power of language. Obviously the term postman is outdated if not archaic. I know two female postal workers and I wouldn't refer to either of them as "the mailman", but I still think that this is a theoretical issue with practical implications, rather than a practical issue. My point was exactly as you stated, that they are not of the same immediate importance. The job must first be available, and then we can train ourselves to see past the archaic language and remove it from our vocabulary.

I picked an example that I felt was clear and fair. By fair I mean I didn't search for the craziest and most unpopular pc concepts I could find. But the fact that "PC" is a pejorative term says it all really. What is wrong with being politically correct? Nothing. It's what we should strive for. But it's used in a derogatory way. You might have the most brilliant and fair idea but some conservative has only to call it "PC" and you are fighting an uphill battle.

That's largely because these same people allow themselves to be called "Anti-War" as if it were a disgrace and hang their heads when they are tagged "liberal". I'm talking about John Kerry, who could have unseated George Bush but allowed himself to be portrayed as anti-military when he was the one that actually went to war. That's a bit of a tangent, so I'll stop there for now.

I agree entirely. I'm not sure that's an example of "lock-step" liberal thinking though, just of how a well funded and effective PR campaign can demonise specific words.