posted
I ran across this today and thought it was interesting. It's kind of the old moral dilemma...is it ok to steal if your family is starving? Except it adds a new dimension...is it ok for a priest to say so?
quote:Rehovot Chief Rabbi Simcha Cook told Kol Chai radio Thursday regarding the possibility of bloodshed at the parade, “There are some things rabbis cannot say, but the public needs to understand on its own.” Rabbi Elyakim Levanon said during the radio program that holding the gay parade in Jerusalem constitutes “blasphemy.” “I cannot tell people how to act in such situations, but it is enough to look at the scriptures to see that cases of blasphemy sometimes end in death,” he said.
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I ran across this today and thought it was interesting. It's kind of the old moral dilemma...is it ok to steal if your family is starving? Except it adds a new dimension...is it ok for a priest to say so?
It's certainly not ok for him to say that it's not theft, or better than other forms of theft. (IMO, of course.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's profoundly stupid advice. When the parishioners get caught they will not be able to use the priest's advice as a legal defense.
Are people starving to death in the UK right now? Stealing to avoid death is fine with me, I just really doubt that's what will happen here.
I think what will happen instead is that people who want something they don't have money for will steal it, some percentage will get caught, and the punishment they get will be worse than going without whatever it was they stole.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it was fairly clear that he was condoning theft of food only - along the lines of what Jean Valjean did. He is clearly not suggesting that people steal game systems or big screen TVs or other luxury items. On top of it, he is asking those who feel compelled to take this action to stick to large corporations (i.e. Walmart) because they can more easily absorb the shrink damage than a mom-n-pop shop.
Maybe I'm biased in my reading. If it weren't for my church, I'd likely be in that same situation. While I would never normally contemplate such an action, I refuse to rule out the possibility that I might stoop that low if I truly had no resources and no hope.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A better solution would be for the church to provide charitable services to help those parishioners in need, rather than tell them it's okay to shoplift.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: "It's a matter of circumstance" to me is a more apt response.
So, purely out of curiosity, is there a circumstance which allows for one to covet his neighbor's wife?
I don't see how it remains that even literal bible interpretations allow for the breaking of commandments for what amounts to convenience.
Though not religious or at all Christian, my personal opinion is that the commandments were always meant to be used as guidelines and ideals, rather than hard and fast rules, but how do most Christians view them? Do they stick only with the ones that are easiest to follow, or is it just that some of the commandments are inherently less malleable? So not killing and not stealing deny certain human needs that supersede ideals, while avoiding adultery and honoring of family are things that are more straightforward and clear. It makes an amount of sense to me, but it rather begs the question, at least for me, of why having commandments is important then, at all? One could get by without them, if the only lesson they actually teach is to be good within the degree to which you are allowed, and not to hold your needs above others if you are able not to. In even more basic terms- "don't be evil" would probably cover it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A better solution would be for the church to provide charitable services to help those parishioners in need, rather than tell them it's okay to shoplift.
Well said.
As casual speculation, I can agree with the concept. But a leader saying it in front of his congregation in that way seems extremely irresponsible.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:A better solution would be for the church to provide charitable services to help those parishioners in need, rather than tell them it's okay to shoplift.
Well said.
As casual speculation, I can agree with the concept. But a leader saying it in front of his congregation in that way seems extremely irresponsible.
I agree with both of you.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel like I'd like more context- such as what charitable services (including any provided by the church) are available and how much the congregation could expect to be aware of those services. He does explicitly state that such stealing is harmful and that to whatever meager extent it might be excusable, it is only so for those who have no other options. The article doesn't say whether he mentioned the consequences for those who might get caught.
It might be bad advice, but I'd hate to jump down the throat of someone who may have shown some courage in trying to make people engage a serious topic. Especially around the holidays, it's very easy to play it safe.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My feelings are ambivalent... on one hand, I admire his honesty, and if this can help draw attention to the lack of basic necessities among the poorest in England, then it'll do some good.
On the other hand, doesn't England have food stamps? Couldn't he instead start working overtime helping parishioners fill out the forms for foodstamps? (I know from helping others here the form is 6 pages long and requires paystub, bills, SS card, sometimes a letter from one's landlord... difficult for someone who has no experience with paperwork, or has poor reading skills, or has misplaced essential documents years ago)
He could also start a food shelter and go and ask some of those stores to donate their food. I know a lot of stores here give away hundreds of thousands of dollars of food in charitable donations.
There are plenty of ways to help alleviate the problem without damaging the integrity and self respect of his congregation. Though maybe he *has* tried all that, and is so sick of all the poverty he sees he's promoting a more radical solution.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I'm with those of you who say that it is interesting to speculate, but that the priest should not have said it. I know I would steal if there were no other choices, but then it's a matter of survival and instinct takes over, so what's the point of a priest saying anything about it?
He is saying that if you're about to become a prostitute or start robbing people's homes, it's better to shoplift, and then from people who can more readily absorb the cost.
It made me wonder how bad things are around his church. It would be nice if I had more context for this statement. How desperate is his parish? Are there people about ready to sell their bodies to make ends meet? Can the local parish help somehow?
It does seem to me that the priest should be asking for help from the other parishioners as that is a priest's job.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He advised his congregation in need to take from the wealthy business and not the small business. Stealing is stealing but taking from the wealthy is ok. Taxes on the middle class and poor are evil but taxes on the rich are rightous. Taking from another is wrong....whether you're shoplifting from evil Wal-mart or the obscure corner store.
Theft is theft despite the wealth of the victim.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: [QB] I think I'm with those of you who say that it is interesting to speculate, but that the priest should not have said it. I know I would steal if there were no other choices, but then it's a matter of survival and instinct takes over, so what's the point of a priest saying anything about it?
To absolve them of guilt, perhaps. It's one thing if you do something that's necessary, but you know it's wrong and are overcome by guilt from your actions. It's another if you're able to see it as being morally justified. The priest is basically trying to save them from their conscience. (as weird as that sounds)
*Insert something about your arguments being childish and weak here.*
quote:He is saying that if you're about to become a prostitute or start robbing people's homes, it's better to shoplift, and then from people who can more readily absorb the cost.
It made me wonder how bad things are around his church. It would be nice if I had more context for this statement. How desperate is his parish? Are there people about ready to sell their bodies to make ends meet? Can the local parish help somehow?
I spent a weekend sleeping on the floor of a church in downtown Toronto, with a couple friends. It was a pretty eye-opening experience... a lot of the congregation was homeless and slept in the church during the week, and almost all of them took drugs - some of them in the alley next to the church. (the reverend wouldn't allow them to bring drugs in the building) A local charity would come and put on a pancake breakfast every Sunday morning, but a lot of these people would beg or turn tricks during the week. The reverend lived in near poverty himself - he gave all of his non-essential income to his parishioners, and the few middle classed people who attended gave pretty generously too, but not nearly enough to provide for 230 people.
You really should visit an inner city church in the ghetto of a big city... it's a pretty strange experience, and certainly depressing. Interesting too, though... a lot of these drug addicts and prostitutes were very strong believers, to the point of almost shouting when singing hymns, and weeping during prayer.
*Random snarky menacing comments* (sorry I haven't been much of an Arch-Nemesis so far, the Christmas season has me feeling to jovial)
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone who worked for my mother stole three of her checks, and used one to pay her cable bill, with the second one she paid rent. The third she never got around to using before she was caught. On her cable bill she put her address and account number with the cable company. Mom would likely never have noticed, but I happened to start doing my mom's bills lately and I knew she didn't use that cable company. When I pulled up the check image, I saw that it wasn't even her handwriting.
Now it's Christmas, and not only does the lady not have cable, she may go to jail for forgery and theft. It's so sad. First of all, she was put in a position of trust and then betrayed it. Secondly she did it in such a dumb way that it was traceable instantly right back to her, and thirdly she will pay far more for committing this crime that it could possibly have been worth to her, losing her job at the least and possibly doing jail time. The whole situation is sad and pathetic.
I'm angry that she tried to take advantage of an elderly lady she was supposed to be helping. I'm angry that she did her own self such a disservice by becoming a criminal. And it angers me, too, that she was so clumsy at theft and forgery as to be caught almost instantly. What was she thinking? If this were someone in my family doing such a lame thing, I'd want to just .... I don't know .... shake them, or something, you know? Criminals are so dumb!
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I absolutely agree that better context of the situation at hand in that parish would greatly help in formulating our own commentaries. I am personally assuming that this vicar has also run out of options for providing assistance to his parishioners.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: On the other hand, doesn't England have food stamps? Couldn't he instead start working overtime helping parishioners fill out the forms for foodstamps? (I know from helping others here the form is 6 pages long and requires paystub, bills, SS card, sometimes a letter from one's landlord... difficult for someone who has no experience with paperwork, or has poor reading skills, or has misplaced essential documents years ago)
As a single example, Dogbreath, I was denied food stamps and cash assistance here because my very meager unemployment benefits were actually too much money to qualify me for services. Now I don't even get unemployment anymore, and I'm waiting for a new appointment for a redetermination.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Goody Scrivener: As a single example, Dogbreath, I was denied food stamps and cash assistance here because my very meager unemployment benefits were actually too much money to qualify me for services. Now I don't even get unemployment anymore, and I'm waiting for a new appointment for a redetermination.
And I can imagine if you ran out of food and money while waiting for said appointment, you'd have no choice but to beg or steal?
IMO, this is one of the pitfalls of our bureaucracy. People can't go without food for a month while waiting for an application to be approved. Then again, most cities I've been in have a couple of soup kitchens... getting to them might be tricky, though. It can make keeping honest pretty difficult.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Goody Scrivener: As a single example, Dogbreath, I was denied food stamps and cash assistance here because my very meager unemployment benefits were actually too much money to qualify me for services. Now I don't even get unemployment anymore, and I'm waiting for a new appointment for a redetermination.
And I can imagine if you ran out of food and money while waiting for said appointment, you'd have no choice but to beg or steal?
IMO, this is one of the pitfalls of our bureaucracy. People can't go without food for a month while waiting for an application to be approved.
Generally, the public Social Services agencies will refer people to private charities, soup kitchens, etc. It's not like private and public charities aren't on speaking terms. I know this because my dear Mom was a social worker for 30 years. Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Must not have had his internet connection turned off yet. The projects in my city have a parking lot full of vehicles worth more than mine. I've smoked for 10 years and I would give that up in an instant if it took food off the table.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Generally, the public Social Services agencies will refer people to private charities, soup kitchens, etc. It's not like private and public charities aren't on speaking terms. I know this because my dear Mom was a social worker for 30 years.
Well yes, obviously, my concern was about the amount of strain privately run charities can take. I've become a master pancake flipper and egg frier after cooking breakfast at a local community center nearly every sunday for the past 3 years now, and every now and again, we run out of food. (either because the church hosting that week didn't send enough, or there's just too many people) This isn't too big of a problem, it's just breakfast food, so one of us just runs to the store and buys more. But I can imagine this becoming difficult to maintain at a place that provides 3 meals. Another local shelter shut down last year because a suburban mega-church didn't come through with a $1 million donation they depended on to make budget - they turned about 270 people out on the streets. I'm imagining the priest in this article had already exhausted whatever the church had given him for taking care of his people. (or spent it on a Lexus, who knows? either way it's not there for them)
That wasn't my point though, actually. The shelter I volunteer at is the only one in about a 3 mile radius. The nearest other shelter just has donuts and coffee Sunday morning, though they do have sandwiches for lunch after the sermon. Some kids walk quite a long ways to get there, since my city has poor and very confusing public transportation. And I've heard charitable donation isn't nearly as common outside of the U.S.
So I'm imagining a man without food or transportation, wandering his way through London trying to find a local food shelter, only to find they're out of food for the night. Worst case scenario? Yeah. Could it be prevented if he was more careful with his planning? Probably. But worst case scenarios happen, people make mistakes, and they're driven to desperation.
quote:The projects in my city have a parking lot full of vehicles worth more than mine.
Huh. I live in a city with 6000 homeless people... I wonder why they don't just sleep in their Mercedes? It's gotta be softer than a cardboard box.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Goody Scrivener: As a single example, Dogbreath, I was denied food stamps and cash assistance here because my very meager unemployment benefits were actually too much money to qualify me for services. Now I don't even get unemployment anymore, and I'm waiting for a new appointment for a redetermination.
And I can imagine if you ran out of food and money while waiting for said appointment, you'd have no choice but to beg or steal?
IMO, this is one of the pitfalls of our bureaucracy. People can't go without food for a month while waiting for an application to be approved. Then again, most cities I've been in have a couple of soup kitchens... getting to them might be tricky, though. It can make keeping honest pretty difficult.
As I said above, if it weren't for my church, I might be in that position myself. I am fortunate in that the church has its own private welfare food distribution system. They don't have everything that we like, but they have enough to keep us going. The non-denominational food pantry can't keep up with demand and had to stop taking applications over the summer.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I admire your service. No Republican would reduce the tax deductions for charitable contributions,...this administration has. Of course donations to charity are just a tax avoidance scheme, right? I would give my money to your charity knowing that more of the money will actually go to help the needy. There is no more efficient means of helping the needy than directly....some people feel they are doing their part by paying their taxes. Despite the fact that only a tiny fraction of tax dollars go directly to the needy. If the govt cared about the poor, they would encourage charitible contributions, not limit them. When filtered through the govt, the poor get fewer dollars.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I admire your service.
I hope the above posts don't give the wrong impression, I'm just a selfish college aged shlub who volunteers a couple hours a week to impress chicks. I've met people who've given most of their lives to helping others - most notably two doctors gave up 6 figure salaries to run a clinic in Kenya. Those are the people who deserve admiration, IMO.
quote:No Republican would reduce the tax deductions for charitable contributions,...this administration has. Of course donations to charity are just a tax avoidance scheme, right? I would give my money to your charity knowing that more of the money will actually go to help the needy. There is no more efficient means of helping the needy than directly....some people feel they are doing their part by paying their taxes. Despite the fact that only a tiny fraction of tax dollars go directly to the needy. If the govt cared about the poor, they would encourage charitible contributions, not limit them. When filtered through the govt, the poor get fewer dollars.
We're already having this convo in a different thread and I don't want it to spill over, but the reducing tax breaks for charitable donations bit startled me a little. Could you post an article about it in the other thread?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is hard to tell without a transcript of the entire sermon, but from the quotes that are given in the article, I think the priest's words are being mischaracterized. None of the quotes are second person "I advise you, they are all third person and use the hypothetical "would." "I would ask that they . . ." It doesn't sound like he's advising his congregation to shoplift, it sounds like he's calling their attention to the condition of people less fortunate than themselves. Which is how he characterizes the sermon too: "Rather, this is a call for our society no longer to treat its most vulnerable people with indifference and contempt."
It does appear that he said in the sermon that he advises people in one-on-one counseling on the "least bad" options for stealing if they're desperate. Which is a problem on it's own -- either he's giving questionable advice in counseling or he's exagerating for rhetorical effect in preaching. But it's NOT suggesting shoplifting as an option to a congregation of people who might otherwise not have considered it.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: He advised his congregation in need to take from the wealthy business and not the small business. Stealing is stealing but taking from the wealthy is ok. Taxes on the middle class and poor are evil but taxes on the rich are rightous. Taking from another is wrong....whether you're shoplifting from evil Wal-mart or the obscure corner store.
Theft is theft despite the wealth of the victim.
I disagree entirely. It is much worse to steal from someone who needs it than from someone who has plenty. I'm not saying it's right to steal from the wealthy, just that they are not going to be nearly as hurt by it. And when it comes to shoplifting, I don't think they are hurt at all. They pass on the cost of shoplifting to their consumers. So they are the ones who are hurt, to the extent that anyone is hurt.
The tax discussion doesn't belong here, I think.
Dogbreath -- stop saying things I agree with. How can I come up with snarky retorts? Luckily, it's Christmas Eve so I'm off today. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, purely out of curiosity, is there a circumstance which allows for one to covet his neighbor's wife?
You'd need pretty fantastic circumstantial gymnastics to justify it. Without thinking very hard about it, say you were single and met a woman in an abusive relationship, and became acquainted. If she asked you if she ought to remain married for the sake of marriage, and you said "no," and then indicated that if she left her husband that you would take care of her, I'm not so certain you would be committing sin. But to me that's not exactly coveting, which feels more like desiring something you ought not to have.
quote: I don't see how it remains that even literal bible interpretations allow for the breaking of commandments for what amounts to convenience.
Convenience isn't the right concept. Convenience for who? The ease for which something could be done has no bearing on it's moral correctness.
quote: Though not religious or at all Christian, my personal opinion is that the commandments were always meant to be used as guidelines and ideals, rather than hard and fast rules, but how do most Christians view them? Do they stick only with the ones that are easiest to follow, or is it just that some of the commandments are inherently less malleable? So not killing and not stealing deny certain human needs that supersede ideals, while avoiding adultery and honoring of family are things that are more straightforward and clear. It makes an amount of sense to me, but it rather begs the question, at least for me, of why having commandments is important then, at all? One could get by without them, if the only lesson they actually teach is to be good within the degree to which you are allowed, and not to hold your needs above others if you are able not to. In even more basic terms- "don't be evil" would probably cover it.
Some principles are more important than others. I also agree that some are more malleable than others. We need commandments because people need to be told what to do before they will decide what they are going to do of themselves. If God appeared to the entire world right now and in some manner made sure everybody knew he was speaking, and said, "Forget everything said about me, just refrain from being evil." That would be stupid. People already get confused about specific commandments, how much more than with the generalities?
The trick to being a good person is first adopting good principles as your base, and then recognizing how to rightly apply those principles in whatever circumstance you find, realizing that sometimes because you don't have all the information you might make a mistake, that is where God is handy.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has been my discovery that there are some words implicit but missing in each of the commandments. They are, "in your society" or "from those in your society."
Thou shall not kill--those in your society. Hence capital punishment being the killing of those who have left society (by murdering or other heinous acts) and war (killing people of other societies to protect or expand your own) have historically been allowed.
Thou shall not covet they Neighbors wife--if she is in your society. Hence prostitution, rape during conquest, and the abuse of certain slaves have been historically allowed since the women being coveted have been women from outside society.
Thou shall not steal--from those within your society. Hence wars of conquest, the theft from foreigners either at home or at their homes have been historically allowed because, well, the victims were not members of society. Even class war fare as we see it played out to this day falls under this banner. Some of the wealthy feel there is no sin in cheating, overcharging, underpaying or out right ripping off their employees, customers, or the common people because, after all, they are not of the same society. Meanwhile some of the poor feel justified in stealing from the rich for the same reasons.
All of this is a poor, small sighted view. One of the things that cheers me up is how, historically, that view is getting wider as the world gets smaller. Universal recognition that all humans are part of the society protected by these commandments is getting closer.
One hundred years ago the majority view was that only ones own race, nationality, and gender were covered by these rules, or perhaps ones own family. Only the fanatics said that others, other genders, other races, other nations were also covered. The idea that Lynching = Murder was just something the liberal nuts entertained.
Today its the common thought, and the liberal nuts have moved to a bigger view--that animals should be covered by those commandments.
Some, not so nutty, and not so liberal, have expanded that view to include unborn children of all faiths, races, nationalities.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Jesus' take on this was interesting. (see the good Samaritan, the answer to "who is my neighbor" or "who do the commandments apply to?)
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
That was my impression also. He was not so much advising his congregation to steal as advising them to have sympathy for those who steal to support themselves, and to offer suggestions to those who do steal so as to minimize the impact on others.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: "People tend to go to these supermarkets once or twice a month but how can you accurately evaluate how much you a going to consume?" he asked. "They can't tell so they buy extra.
When we used to do this, we were buying mostly dry and frozen goods that wouldn't go to waste. Now that I'm trying to do more fresh foods, I go about every other day. But I don't have kids; swinging by the store for a half hour isn't going to make anyone miss soccer practice or scouts or anything.
quote: Now is the moment all parties should be searching out ways to define prosperity that get away from runaway consumption.
I definitely agree with this.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
