Only two shoplifting days until Christmas!

He's just trying to shake us up, make us see how few alternatives some people have. I mean, there's prayer, but what sort of priest would condone that behavior. He would help them himself, but he's running a church not a... wait, is this a trick?

Full transcript of the sermon here:

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/4813866.Full_transcript_of_the_sermon_g…

It shows how this really isn't a violation of thou shalt not steal.

However, I do tend to agree with this portion:

"Let my words not be misrepresented as a simplistic call for people to shoplift. The observation that shoplifting is the best option that some people are left with is a grim indictment of who we are. Rather, this is a call for our society no longer to treat its most vulnerable people with indifference and contempt. When people are released from prison, or find themselves suddenly without work or family support, then to leave them for weeks and weeks with inadequate or clumsy social support is monumental, catastrophic folly. We create a situation which leaves some people little option but crime."

Nothing new there, kind of makes me think he threw in the call to shoplifting thing to get in the news again. Not his first time, after all.

Doesn't he know that the god-fellah said "Thou shalt not steal" in that Xian instruction manual, the bible? But i guess you've gotta pick-n-mix from that crock of shit.

I don't agree with the suggestion, but from a sociological view, he has a valid point. All too often, we ignore the poor, acting as though it was somehow "deserved," and then act as though the rising crime rate is unrelated. In many cases, people turn to crime because legal alternatives are few and far between. They're doing what they have to in order to survive. This obviously isn't always the case, but it's fairly common. If, as I suspect, this priest is attempting a Modest Proposal-style commentary on this, more power to him.

I think it's a perceptive and human observation to make, but the Biblical restriction on theft is not "Thou shalt not steal unless thou art very hungry and then thou must steal from the chain store." When you have to speak out against your religion's rules to look yourself in the mirror, it might be time to rethink your religion.

Oh look, I got irony for Christmas again.

It's a priest calling for " our society no longer to treat its most vulnerable people with indifference and contempt" leaving me to wonder how exactly he defines indifference and contempt.

Apparently, there's stealing, then there's stealing. Maybe we could apply the same principle to coveting and adultery. Oh, yeah, and not having any other gods before me.

This is another example of where 2 wrongs don't make a right. If we corrected the initial wrong in the first place, then there would be no need for the second.

I'm curious... Was this sermon given before or after he passed around the collection plate?

I think it's a little unfair to lampoon the guy for pointing out that some people have no choice, and end up stealing because of it.

I mean, even as secularists, we try not to teach in absolutes. Is it a terrible thing that he doesn't either?

Actually, the Biblical restriction in theft is "thou shalt not steal, but gleaning is not stealing". The Biblical poor law is that producers must leave some of their product for the poor to glean. The punishment for failure to leave gleanings was severe. So, in terms of his religious law, the priest still has a point.

Tut Tut. Has he forgotten the 10 Commandments? He will be kebabbed for eternity now, not obeying the celestial despot.

Imagine, the chavs have God's permission now to loot the stores. Never seen a poor one yet, they always seem to have beers in their hands, a cigarette hanging permanently from their flaccid vacant gobs, the latest stereo, huge LCD screens in their front rooms. Perhaps Vicar, you should look at the real poor in the world, who can hardly afford to feed their families, rather than encouraging the feckless to thieve, just so they can fill their Xmas stockings with more junk on Mythmass.

Rutee... it's one thing to not sit in judgment over those who commit such acts out of desperation... it is another thing altogether to advocate theft to a congregation from whom you are asking, and in some cases, expecting monetary contribution.

And If you don't want to take your kids with you on this little working for the lord Jaunt he would be glad to look after them for you...

This one from the same source is pretty cute, and shows that all cops are not pigs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8427624.stm

As to the shoplifting bit, considering how the churches are swindling people, a little shop-lifting seems almost innocent.
And no, I don't do it because I am shit scared of getting caught, and besides the things I would have wanted to steal are generally way to big to carry out of a shop (like a lathe or a milling machine).

Are there in fact people in the UK who need to steal to eat?

What happened to the welfare state?

I've been in this position. It's one thing to say you shouldn't steal or there are legal means or crime doesn't pay. But when you've been on the streets for whatever amount of time, your completely alone, I don't mean the alone where your friends don't happen to be around I mean the alone that makes you feel sick inside through helplessness, your damn fucking right you steal to eat. If it's raining and you need a roof over your head, break into a garage, a mall, or whatever. You do what you need to to live.

Far too many people look down upon the homeless/helpless and it makes me sick. It's usually because they assume that they somehow 'choose' to be that way, that the government would help them if they asked. But in so many stupid ass cases this isn't true. The systems fucked and if you have to steal from it to get any help you can find then you go fucking do it. Just don't get caught :)

What about stealing from the church collection plate? Is that OK?

#16

While I understand your sentiment, please don't conflate PZ's point about a priest giving a sermon in which he seemingly advocates theft, with sitting in absolute judgment over all who would commit such an act on any scale...

Another thing: OK thhe preacher is making a point about economic justice.

What's he going to say if one of his parishoners follows his advice and gets arrested? Something about not meaning it literally?

@Abdul

There are many people that need to. I was in college and my guardian passed away, i needed somewhere to live, but before i could get housing benefit i needed to be on income support, before i could get that i needed a stable address. I'd been kicked from my guardians home and had been sleeping on college grounds. The problem with the system is it relies on itself, when one things missing the whole thing collapses. I spent too long struggling to eat. It's despicable. Funny thing is by the way, it was a priest that eventually found and helped me lol. Nice guy, if a bit deluded.

I have a better idea: just put on a robe and a hat, tell people you're the mouthpiece of a god and that god says everyone should give you their loot. Why steal when you can fleece the gullible? Apparently there's no commandment against that.

My advice in these circumstances, when people have been let down so very badly by the rest of society, is that they should not hurt anybody, and cope as best they can. The strong temptation is to burgle or rob people – family, friends, neighbours, strangers. Others are tempted towards prostitution, a nightmare world of degradation and abuse for all concerned. Others are tempted towards suicide.

Instead, I would rather that they shoplift. My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift.

He's channeling Emma Goldman and Cardinal Manning.

"Fifth Avenue is laid in gold, every mansion is a citadel of money and power. Yet there you stand, a giant, starved and fettered, shorn of his strength. Cardinal Manning long ago proclaimed that 'necessity knows no law' and that 'the starving man has a right to a share of his neighbour's bread.' Cardinal Manning was an ecclesiastic steeped in the traditions of the Church, which has always been on the side of the rich against the poor. But he had some humanity, and he knew that hunger is a compelling force. You, too, will have to learn that you have a right to share your neighbours bread. Your neighbours-- they have not only stolen your bread, but they are sapping your blood. They will go on robbing you, your children, and your children's children, unless you wake up, unless you become daring enough to demand your rights. Well, then, demonstrate before the palaces of the rich; demand work. If they do not give you work, demand bread. If they deny you both, take bread. It is your sacred right!"

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/goldman/living/living1_11…

Very commendable, Father Tim!

@18

I didn't realise I was.

Back when I was a good little Catholic boy I remember learning the difference between lying and lying. The "bad" form of lying was a sin. The "good" form of lying was euphemistically called "a mental reservation". Really. You told an untruth, but in your mind you made "a mental reservation". Of course, you could use mental reservations only when you were lying on God's behalf. It was tricky.

Fuck Christmas!
It's a waste of fucking time.
Fuck Santa
He's just out to get your dime.
Fuck Holly and Fuck Ivy
and fuck and that mistletoe.

Let my words not be misrepresented as a simplistic call for people to shoplift. The observation that shoplifting is the best option that some people are left with is a grim indictment of who we are. Rather, this is a call for our society no longer to treat its most vulnerable people with indifference and contempt. When people are released from prison, or find themselves suddenly without work or family support, then to leave them for weeks and weeks with inadequate or clumsy social support is monumental, catastrophic folly. We create a situation which leaves some people little option but crime.

My $0.02: What I got out of it was not so much an incitement to shoplift, but rather a request that, if your only option is crime anyway, choose the crime that will do the least damage. Choose the lesser evil, if you will. Rather than mug people on the street, steal what you need from large chains that can absorb the loss better. In other words, "I'd much rather you didn't have to, but if you have no choice, do it this way..."

Seeing a priest take a shades-of-gray approach is actually quite refreshing.

Ah! The gospel according to Robin Hood.

Miles670...

It is more than a little spooky how similar your situation you describe at #20 sounds to mine... I mean really spooky... (left / kicked out of legal guardian's home, couldn't get housing benefits at my university, spent time sleeping on college grounds before they ushered me off.)

It's been a very long time since then and I've come a long way, but I do not look back on those days fondly. You have my heartfelt sympathies as someone who shares much of what you seem to have gone through...

@18

I didn't realise I was.

Fair enough... and it wasn't meant at you as much as at those who might interpret it that way... happens from time to time around here.

I shall make social comment. If you are having a hard time and no one offers you charity, steal from any rich bastard except me or my church. After all THEY should fix things for you, not me or my congregation or wasname.

@29

Agreed

Even if I DID have to look up 'conflate' before replying...

They should just stick with GOATS ON FIRE. It's the newest Christmas tradition!

"In May last year, he walked into Stationery Box in High Ousegate and started throwing items bearing the Playboy logo on to the floor. He said he was protesting over the use of the porn empire’s logo on products aimed at children."

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/4813836._It___s_okay_to_shoplift__says_…

To be fair, everyone else in the church seems to understand that he's firmly at the wrong/crazy end of the spectrum.

The Archbishop of York, his boss, has spoken out about poverty. Spoken out from here:

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/215

His enormous, all expenses paid, taxpayer subsidized, palace.

#26:

Seeing a priest take a shades-of-gray approach is actually quite refreshing.

This is the Church of England we're talking about. They're all about shades of grey (other than cake or death, of course).

In other words, "I'd much rather you didn't have to, but if you have no choice, do it this way..."

Seeing a priest take a shades-of-gray approach is actually quite refreshing.

I dunno... it still rings hollow for me coming from a representative of an institution that compels people to give them money for essentially nothing... seems like the more altruistic sermon would be "we're going to insist that during this difficult time our congregation not feel compelled to contribute to the church's coffers, and if you feel the need to steal, please come to our doors and tell us what it is you need before deciding to risk your freedom by committing a crime"...

Again, for me it's not the message (believe me, I'm the last person that's going to sit in judgment over people doing what they absolutely need to do to survive), it's the hypocrisy of the messenger that bugs me...

I'm looking forward to seeing what strange gods says about this...

Again, for me it's not the message (believe me, I'm the last person that's going to sit in judgment over people doing what they absolutely need to do to survive), it's the hypocrisy of the messenger that bugs me...

Yes, there is that.

To be honest, I don't think he's making a bad point. The problem is the organization he represents robes itself in absurd amounts of wealth and is largely indifferent to the suffering of others.

It's ironic that this preist is advocating the breaking of a well-supported absolute when the church itself refuses to allow condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS based on a much more tenuous story about Onan pulling out a little too quickly.

@Celtic

Thanks bud but you know what, as badly as the last few years have gone they made me who I am today. I was a very lazy kid, intelligent amongst the people in my school but useless in the real world. After Jan of this year I promised to do better and since then I've gotten into uni, I have a good place to live, and I've found a passion.

You don't need to sympathise, i've sorted myself and I'm gonna do great things.

(I'm sorry to hear you were in a similar situation by the way but judging from your blog it looks as though you've moved onto better things yourself, nicely done)

Abdul A @ 15

Are there in fact people in the UK who need to steal to eat?

What happened to the welfare state?

Um, the 'welfare state' gives you some money under a good chunk of circumstances but it's not much. We don't have food stamps or anything like that so that cash has to cover everything. Pensions are notoriously skimpy.

And there are people who fall through the gaps.

Not much milk and a complete lack of honey.

His enormous, all expenses paid, taxpayer subsidized, palace.

Actually, Anglican prelates' living expenses are not taxpayer-subsidised. The Church of England derives its revenues partly from voluntary donations, and partly from its various private estates and holdings. Since the Church of England is an established church, the Church's property assets are managed on its behalf by the Church Commissioners, a public body responsible to Parliament. However, the Church of England does not receive subsidies directly from the Treasury. (Though, like all other churches and non-profit organisations, it does benefit from "Gift Aid" which allows it to claim back tax paid on all donations from UK taxpayers.)

Don't get me wrong: I'm a strong supporter of disestablishing the Church of England. An established church has no place in a modern secular society. However, while the C of E does have a privileged legal position, it's important not to misunderstand the relationship between it and the British state.

It's OK because a priest says it is, and they've got the backing of God.

That's hardly fair. He was sanctioned by his superiors and his opinion is in no way representative of the greater church.

Not that it even matters. In fact, I'd say the fact that the church remains fairly passive in the face of poverty (LBJ did more in six years than the Catholics were capable of doing in six hundred) makes the official anti-theft church's stance far more hard hearted and unreasonable than the rebel priest.

The priest makes a valid point. If you're going to choose between stealing and starving, then by all means choose stealing. Should you need to steal, do it to a big and well-funded chain store that can absorb the lose. And never steal more than you absolutely need.

You don't have to be a man of the cloth (or an atheistic rational thinker) to come to these conclusions. He's tackling real-life ethics when faced with a moral dilemma. And if priests are supposed to be our moral leaders, he's taking a brave stand that few others approach.

That's bold and ballsy and he should be praised for free thinking, no ripped on simply for being a priest.

If you're going to steal from the "big boys" who can absorb the loss, why not just steal from the church? Who can better afford it?

@Walton

Thank you for that, I never knew.

@Paddy-O#2

Nothing new there, kind of makes me think he threw in the call to shoplifting thing to get in the news again. Not his first time, after all.

He's following the example of his boss, the Archbishop of York, who never fails to make misses a chance to get himself in the news. Rarely observed in his palace, though.

Steal from big business. Yup. I guess that's what's behind the rash of copper thefts from churches lately.

If you're going to steal from the "big boys" who can absorb the loss, why not just steal from the church? Who can better afford it?

I'm sure that's a question worth asking, too.

Thanks bud but you know what, as badly as the last few years have gone they made me who I am today. I was a very lazy kid, intelligent amongst the people in my school but useless in the real world. After Jan of this year I promised to do better and since then I've gotten into uni, I have a good place to live, and I've found a passion.

You don't need to sympathise, i've sorted myself and I'm gonna do great things.

Yup... scary... not from the Boston area, are you?

Allow me to substitute "sympathize" with "empathize", then... And thanks... I agree... I'm a better person for what I went through, and if nothing else it's given me a much more grounded view of life and the plight of those less fortunate than i am at this point in my life, and an appreciation for what I have that made me strive to be better and learn more. Still and all, I don't remember the period with fondness.

Glad to hear you've overcome tough obstacles and I have no doubt you will do great things... good on ya...

I love how people here think all churches are swimming in gold like that jackass televangelist who died recently, or scientology.

As priests go, I kind of like this guy.

That's bold and ballsy and he should be praised for free thinking, no ripped on simply for being a priest.

Yeah... that might be slightly overstated...

AA@15 Need to steal to eat? Not likely. There are no video game banks however. Or booze banks for that matter.

That's bold and ballsy and he should be praised for free thinking, no ripped on simply for being a priest.

I'm not going to go so far as to call him a hero, but he's not the devil either. If he's that concerned about it he could finish the sermon by telling his congregation to take what they would have put in the collection plate and give it to someone who could use it.

I love how people here think all churches are swimming in gold like that jackass televangelist who died recently

Seems like an unfair overstatement of anything that's been said here... are you denying that churches the size of the CoE and the RCC are not embarrassingly wealthy organizations? I think it's a fair point to be made as far as the hypocrisy of the messenger. Have you seen Westminster Abbey or the Vatican? The opulence is staggering.

BTW, the big boys absorb the cost by passing it along to their customers.

If a chain store in a poor neighborhood loses enough to shoplifting, they close that store.

@Celtic_Evolution

Afraid not bud i'm based in the UK. I dislike it though and won't be staying for very long. There are things to do out in the world!

I don't remember the bad times with fondness at all, but I remember a point when I'd gotten my acceptance from uni, I couldn't help but marvel at how I'd gotten to where I wanted to be. So no matter how bad some memories are, I now know it actually did just take time and effort, fuck does that make me smile :)

I should also point out that the Church of England, despite being a historically privileged institution and owning a vast amount of property, is not actually swimming in cash. It has to maintain a large number of historic churches, many of which are listed buildings and cost a lot in upkeep. In former times many local Anglican priests lived in large "vicarages" or "rectories" provided for free by the church, but a lot of these have now been sold off to save money. The C of E also runs several "social housing" estates that provide low-cost accommodation. Local parishes are generally left to fend for themselves financially, and the congregations are dwindling (and, in most areas, tend to consist largely of elderly ladies), so the donations are not rolling in.

Don't get me wrong - Anglicanism is as silly as any other brand of Christianity. But it isn't a money-making scam lining the pockets of its leaders, like the American evangelical megachurches or Scientology. Nor does the C of E have buckets of cash to spare.

If he's that concerned about it he could finish the sermon by telling his congregation to take what they would have put in the collection plate and give it to someone who could use it.

Exactly... I'm not vilifying the guy outright... I just think that there might have been better options he could have offered in his sermon, or made offers like the one tsg just pointed out, instead of condoning theft... just comes off as a bit hypocritical to me (which is why I asked the admittedly snarky question about the collection plate at #8).

However that is merely my opinion, and I'll be quite unsurprised to learn that I might be wrong in my viewpoint... happens all the time to me here, and it's why I keep coming back.

Well, I'm glad Walton has details on the Church of England.

Now the RCC I'm not going to defend. It's too easy for them to pay out of court settlement costs in pedophilia cases. I doubt that the leaders are swimming in gold like Scrooge McDuck, but they're definitely sitting on a fair amount of money they could use.

Walton -

Don't get me wrong - Anglicanism is as silly as any other brand of Christianity. But it isn't a money-making scam lining the pockets of its leaders, like the American evangelical megachurches or Scientology. Nor does the C of E have buckets of cash to spare.

According to the CoE website, the CoE took in over 1.3 billion Pounds in revenue in 2007 (roughly 2 billion US dollars)... that would put them well within the Fortune 1000... I think they are doing just fine for themselves...

Strapped for cash? Don't know how you're going to afford a few gifts for the family? Don't worry about it, just steal them!

No, PZ: that's deeply unfair and rather disingenuous. The priest's sermon specifically addresses desperate situations: people who can't afford necessities, not just want a few toys for Christmas. There's a very legitimate argument to be had about the ethics of stealing to survive (inside or outside of Christian morality), or that the church should do more to support the poor, but your post misrepresents what the guy actually said.

However that is merely my opinion, and I'll be quite unsurprised to learn that I might be wrong in my viewpoint... happens all the time to me here, and it's why I keep coming back.

It's definitely a good point. What I keep coming back to is the part where he says, "But keeping the poor ‘close to our hearts’ can be a costly business. Many of us, for much of the time, shrink from this Christian calling, because to accept Mary's call is leave our comfort zone way behind." He's in a unique position here as the spiritual leader of a congregation to encourage others to do something about it. Even if it isn't donating to the poor, he could mobilize them to try to fix the situation that's causing it in the first place. And maybe that's what he's trying to do. So, while I'll give him credit for being a realist, maybe I'll admonish him a little bit for not taking it far enough.

He's in a unique position here as the spiritual leader of a congregation to encourage others to do something about it.

Agreed... and I also agree with a large portion of the content of his sermon... I just think it goes off the tracks at the point where he seemingly endorses an illegal activity that could cost a person their personal freedom for a period of time. I think the crux of the message could have been delivered without condoning theft (even if it is at times a necessity for survival in the worst of circumstances), and find it disingenuous coming from a member of a wealthy religious organization while making no attempt to curb the church's compelling people to donate to its coffers.

Do you know how large chain stores absorb loss through theft? Payroll. You are not only stealing from the store. You are stealing money out of the pockets of the employees. How stupid is this priest?

So if it's ok to steal now, when do we get stonings back? Oh yeah, I want to own someone, when can we start owning people again? Especially women, they're fun to own and treat like cattle.

Religion is a disease of the mind.

The other thing to be disgusted about with the CofE is it makes the United Kingdom a de facto theocracy. According to my English husband (and correct me if I'm wrong here) one has to be a member of a CofE congregation in order to be Prime Minister.

Thus Blair needing to wait until he was no longer PM to convert to Catholicism.

Re: the shoplifting thing: what an irresponsible thing to say in York. They have such serious problems with crime, and the kids are out of control. It's not that I disagree with this priest's underlying sentiment, it's more that in this particular place the people who will "take his advice," as has been observed above, are not the truly desperate but the "I really NEED this lipstick/ video game/ CD/ pack of smokes" folks.

I'm looking forward to seeing what strange gods says about this...

I suppose you can guess, since we've talked about this.

If one has dependents, and cannot provide for their necessities of life, then it is morally necessary to steal. If one has no dependents, but cannot provide for one's own necessities, then it is morally acceptable to choose to steal rather than die.

And it's preferable to steal from the rich than the poor, considering the diminishing marginal utility of wealth.

Like most of the high-church ministers I've heard, this guy probably spends a significant portion of his time talking about poverty. And most of the time, hardly anyone listens. You can imagine his frustration.

He has found a way to make the mainstream media talk about poverty and the difficult decisions faced by people who are trapped in poverty. That is not a trivial matter.

@60:
Your link says that they took in 897m pounds in 2k7, not 1.3 billion.

And for that matter, they /spent/ 833m pounds.

Now, I don't know why they're sitting on 66m, but there are legitimate reasons for a non profit organization to not spend all of it.

redrabbitslife #66, you have your des crossed. The UK is only a de jure religiously-linked government - de facto it's pretty well secular.

Also AFAIK there's no requirement on the PM to be CoE, but I could believe that history has bequeathed a restriction against Catholics.

Your link says that they took in 897m pounds in 2k7, not 1.3 billion.

No... it doesn't. Please read it again. You are looking at the column for Parishes only. The Total Incoming Resources (Revenue) for the Consolidated Church of England is listed clearly in the last column as 1.314 billion Pounds... and that's after they adjust out 415 million for things like "investments" and "pension contributions".

And they actually spent 1.2 billion Pounds, to be accurate... but since they spent it on themselves, that's really beside the point. There was a 65 million Pound surplus (how many not-for-profit agencies can get away with a 65 million Pound profit?) which went... where exactly? And that's just 2007...

Once again, I'm really not going to listen to any more arguments about the CoE not having "buckets of cash to spare"... seems like they had more than enough to do everything they needed / wanted to do to keep up their church plus had a good deal of money left over.

Religion supports nobody. It has to be supported. It produces no wheat, no corn; it ploughs no land; it fells no forests. It is a perpetual mendicant. It lives on the labors of others, and then has the arrogance to pretend that it supports the giver.Robert G. Ingersoll

Just to put the church into perspective.

CunningLingus,

It's statements like that that make me rank Ingersoll among the greatest of American thinkers.

The other thing to be disgusted about with the CofE is it makes the United Kingdom a de facto theocracy. According to my English husband (and correct me if I'm wrong here) one has to be a member of a CofE congregation in order to be Prime Minister.

Thus Blair needing to wait until he was no longer PM to convert to Catholicism.

No, that's not true. Although the Prime Minister does have a constitutional role within the C of E (he advises the Queen on the appointment of bishops), there is no requirement for the Prime Minister to be an Anglican. Since the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1868, there is no religious test for holding office as a Member of Parliament or for any other elected office. I don't know why Blair chose to wait until leaving office before converting to Catholicism, but there was certainly no legal requirement for him to do so.

The Queen, on the other hand, is required by the Act of Settlement 1701 to be an Anglican, and every British monarch takes an oath at his or her coronation to support the Church of England. Furthermore, under the same Act, any member of the Royal Family who converts to Roman Catholicism, or who marries a Roman Catholic, is permanently excluded from the line of succession to the throne. These provisions are widely viewed as anachronistic and ridiculous, however, and are likely eventually to be repealed.

Since the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1868

Sorry, this should have read 1866.

Ah, I see where what you're referring to.

But uh, yeah, are you aware that non profits are permitted to take in more then they spend? Standard operating procedure for charities is to try to get to the point where, in savings alone, you have enough to continue operations at their current level for 2 years. At least, that's the rule of thumb in Merika.

Looking at this, it's extremely disingenuous to claim that they're only spending the money on themselves. Granted, they put their community services on the same bar as their operating costs, which makes a measure of sense, but also means we can't examine what it came to in precise terms.

I can't seem to find the CoE on sites similar to Charitynavigator.org though, which is distressing and tells me they're probably not doing enough on that count.

I've only recently heard of him Pygmy (wasn't on any of my schools reading lists in England), but from what i've read of, and from him, I wholeheartedly agree, an awesome rational mind.

I shall endeaver to read more of his works.

Walton #73...

I was about to point that out as well... you beat me to it...

I'm not a Brit... but I've long held the impression that the royal family is almost an extension of the CoE, to some degree...

"Do you know how large chain stores absorb loss through theft? Payroll. You are not only stealing from the store. You are stealing money out of the pockets of the employees. How stupid is this priest?"

This is unfortunate, but true. Although I fervently wish it were absorbed by overpaid CEOs, it's simply not what happens.

I'm not a Brit... but I've long held the impression that the royal family is almost an extension of the CoE, to some degree...

It's complicated. In England (though not Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland), the Queen plays a religious role as "Supreme Governor of the Church of England". Her main role, in this capacity, is to appoint Church of England bishops and archbishops (though she has no real discretion, since the appointment is made on the advice of the Prime Minister from among names submitted by an independent commission). As mentioned, the Queen is required by law to be an Anglican, and most (but not all) other members of the Royal Family are also practising Anglicans.

In Scotland, conversely, there is a different established church, the Church of Scotland. The C of S is a Presbyterian church (hence completely different from the Anglican Church in its theology and traditions), and does not have bishops. Although the British monarch is required to be an Anglican, he or she is also required to take a coronation oath to uphold the privileges of the Church of Scotland.

By contrast, the Queen has no religious role in Wales or Northern Ireland, since those jurisdictions do not have established churches. Nor do the sixteen other "Commonwealth Realms" where the Queen is head of state (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, etc.), all of which are secular states. It's really rather a complex mess. Personally I'm strongly in favour of abolishing the established churches in England and Scotland, and it's likely that this will happen eventually.

But uh, yeah, are you aware that non profits are permitted to take in more then they spend? Standard operating procedure for charities is to try to get to the point where, in savings alone, you have enough to continue operations at their current level for 2 years. At least, that's the rule of thumb in Merika.

True, but the CoE is not required to operate this way, nor does it, as far as I can tell... so... ya know... different.

Looking at this, it's extremely disingenuous to claim that they're only spending the money on themselves.

Really? The list of what they are spending it on is pretty clearly broken down:

Costs of generating funds
Clergy stipends
Clergy pension contributions
Clergy housing
Clergy working costs
Pensions paid
National training for ministry
Parish/cathedral operating costs
Support costs
Management & Administration
NCI allocations/ contributions
Retired clergy housing
Major church/cathedral repairs
Other major repairs
New building costs of parishes
Grants/donations to 3rd parties

Of that list, the only thing remotely not "spending it on themselves" is "Grants / donations to 3rd parties" (interestingly vague)... which accounts for exactly 5% (70 million out of 1.2 billion)... is that enough to be called "disingenuous"? I rather hope not...

I can't seem to find the CoE on sites similar to Charitynavigator.org though, which is distressing and tells me they're probably not doing enough on that count.

Agreed...

The other thing to bear in mind is that the CoE gets 26 bishops with voting rights into the House of Lords - the (very, very rough) equivalent would be if three or four US senators were bishops, without every being elected or accountable.

Last week a CoE report stated that 978,000 people a week attend church, out of a population of 60 million. And that's the CoE's own figures, not anything that's been independently audited.

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/10860

The God Delusion sold two million in hardback in the UK.

The Church of England does wield power - it's not particularly sinister or theocratic or anything, mainly because the current Archbishop of Canterbury is, even by the standards of the organisation, an ineffectual idiot. But it's like most modern religions - it preaches tolerance, equality and justice, but the mere idea that one day a woman or homosexual might be a bishop has pretty much torn it in half (hilariously, there is at least one self-declared atheist CoE bishop!).

Britain is, gloriously, a post-theist society. God's a silly story people used to take way too seriously. The CoE is an unmandated, unloved anachronism. The main argument now seems to be 'someone's got to look after those nice buildings' - well, fine, set up a museum trust, employ the current clergy as costumed tour guides.

Fat Tony: Bart, um, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?
Bart: No.
Fat Tony: Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?
Bart: Uh uh.
Fat Tony: And, what if your family don't like bread? They like...cigarettes?
Bart: I guess that's okay.
Fat Tony: Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?
Bart: Hell, no!

"Of that list, the only thing remotely not "spending it on themselves" is "Grants / donations to 3rd parties" (interestingly vague)... which accounts for exactly 5% (70 million out of 1.2 billion)... is that enough to be called "disingenuous"? I rather hope not... "
If you read further, you'll notice that their charitable community services are counted as PArish/Cathedral operating costs. It's on page 7. This actually makes sense to me as a Merikan, with parish-driven charitable donations, but might not be accurate anyway. The line is "Operating costs (incl. Services, education, outreach)"

It's not properly broken down, but it /is/ listed in the budget as an operating expense.

The priest's sermon begins with a lot of typical deluded pig excrement about the birth of Jesus. But then he segues into a good sermon about poverty. He describes a hypothetical situation in which it would be necessary for a person to shoplift. And then he gives conditional advice - that someone in those dire circumstances should steal rather than die. The priest does not by any reasonable stretch advice that someone like PZ Myers should shoplift. PZ has a roof over his head, a nice new insulating front door, a reliable income, and plenty of (well deserved) friends who would help out if he got in tight spot. The priest makes the very good point that some people have no other choice, and he made it in a way that got people talking about poverty - but, unfortunately, in confused way.
I'll close by quoting strange gods before me, who put it best:

If one has dependents, and cannot provide for their necessities of life, then it is morally necessary to steal. If one has no dependents, but cannot provide for one's own necessities, then it is morally acceptable to choose to steal rather than die.

If you read further, you'll notice that their charitable community services are counted as PArish/Cathedral operating costs. It's on page 7. This actually makes sense to me as a Merikan, with parish-driven charitable donations, but might not be accurate anyway. The line is "Operating costs (incl. Services, education, outreach)"

That particular line item is another 20% of their expenses. Even if you assume that all of it is spent on charitable community services, that still leaves them with close to 1 billion pounds spent on themselves.

I'd be more impressed with the priest's message if it was any other time of year. The emphasis now, whether he meant it or not, is on gifts, and all too often, unnecessary gifts.

If he wanted to wake up his congregation, he could have sermonized on how there would be no collection that day, and instead charge his sheep to donate their collection money to a specific charity. Churches always seem to have a handy deep pocket, and I imagine a few people would have woken up to see the church do some direct spending on poverty relief. Actions speak louder and all that.

"That particular line item is another 20% of their expenses. Even if you assume that all of it is spent on charitable community services, that still leaves them with close to 1 billion pounds spent on themselves."

That's true, but I'm not claiming they're perfectly charitable either. I just think it seems ridiculous to claim they do nothing.

If you read further, you'll notice that their charitable community services are counted as PArish/Cathedral operating costs. It's on page 7. This actually makes sense to me as a Merikan

Well, yeah, in the proud American tradition of hiding costs and expenses by intentionally mis-categorizing as part of a larger overhead cost, sure...

But really, I can see no legitimate reason for couching charitable services into "operating costs"... not when they've so diligently broken down other aspects of operations so specifically. Unless of course they don't want people to really know those numbers...

That's true, but I'm not claiming they're perfectly charitable either. I just think it seems ridiculous to claim they do nothing.

The claim wasn't that they do nothing, but that they don't have "buckets of money to spare". I don't know about you, but a 65 million pound surplus after spending 1 billion pounds on their own organization qualifies as "buckets of money" to me.

I just think it seems ridiculous to claim they do nothing.

If anyone had actually claimed that, it would be ridiculous... yes...

When I was a little boy I wanted a bicycle. I prayed and prayed for Jesus to get me a bike but he never delivered. So I stole a bike and prayed to Jesus for forgiveness.

@Rutee

Just to put it into perspective, I could pay off my mortgage, put my kids through college and live off the interest of the remainder for the rest of my life without having to work with 1/10th of the money they have lying around not doing anything. "Buckets of money" certainly seems an apt description.

Do you know how large chain stores absorb loss through theft? Payroll.

How does that work? I though theft was accounted for with an allowance account every fiscal year and deducted from the bottom line, but surely wages are not reduced depending on the amount of theft. What am I missing?

BS

Walton--I think the Act of Settlement actually requires the monarch to be a Protestant, but not specifically a member of the Church of England. The matter has never arisen, but I think that would allow for a monarch who was a member of the Church of Scotland, or a Welsh Methodist, or Lutheran, or member of any number of other denominations. Including some that seem unlikely in the actual world: the African Methodist Episcopal Zion, for example, is clearly Protestant. Eastern Orthodox would, I think, be right out.

Now, envision the possible arguments over whether the Society of Friends is a Protestant Christian denomination. Or, to connect to another thread, questioning a specific Unitarian on whether s/he was a Protestant Christian.

Do you know how large chain stores absorb loss through theft? Payroll.

Citation?

Do you know how large chain stores absorb loss through theft? Payroll.

Tis Himself:

Citation

It is common practice in the corporate world to make up for economic losses through a number of different ways including:

-- Downsizing
-- Decruitment
-- Rightsizing
-- Vertical disintergration
-- Synergy-related headcount restructing (0ur favorite)

They all mean the same thing: You're fired.

Despite all the rhetoric companies wallow in -- stuff about how valuable employees are -- when the rubber meets the road, one of the most preferred methods of balancing the books and meeting Wall Street's targets, is to shit-can a lot of the people at the bottom of the company's totem pole.

There was a time when I had to shoplift to eat. I learned how the stores profiled shoplifters, and went to lots of trouble to look like a "normal" shopper. I would interact with the employees..."where do I find the filet mignon?", that sort of thing.

It dawned on me that all that effort could be applied to bettering myself, and my condition.

Like others here, I am a better person for going through that. It sucks to be hungry, and it sucks more to take from others.

Please be warm, and safe my friends.

#70:

No... it doesn't. Please read it again. You are looking at the column for Parishes only. The Total Incoming Resources (Revenue) for the Consolidated Church of England is listed clearly in the last column as 1.314 billion Pounds... and that's after they adjust out 415 million for things like "investments" and "pension contributions".

About those investments... it was only a few years ago that campaigners succeeded in shaming the CofE into dropping its investments in arms companies. That's right, the church was quite happy to profit from companies which sell weapons to dictators, until the bad PR persuaded them to introduce a more ethical investment policy. Kudos to them, I suppose, for belatedly deciding that making money from blowing limbs off brown people is a bad thing, but aren't they supposed to be moral leaders, not followers?

Not that the church's Ethical Investment Advisory Group is particularly accountable. In 2006, the church's General Synod voted to disinvest from Caterpillar, since their bulldozers were used by the IDF to destroy Palestinian homes. Say what you like about this decision, but the General Synod is the church's legislative body. The response of the EIAG (one of whose members was Tony Blair, not noted for his ethical track record): nuh-uh, not gonna. I believe they were finally persuaded to disinvest this year.

marie-annick @ # 38: ... the church itself refuses to allow condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS ...

I suspect you're getting your Churches mixed up: it's the Roman Catholic one which has the concentrated insanity about all matters sexual &/or female.

This guy's with the Anglican spin-off, which is much less nutty about both those fine things.

'Tis Himself @ # 91 - poor fellow, are you so starved for humor that you must take a five-finger discount from the Emo Phillips emporium? (He's an independent operator, you know, not like Letterman™ or LenoⓇ...) Come now, laddie, it's only fair that those of us with material to spare help you out in your hour of need.

There were a priest, a lawyer, and a rabbi sitting together on this plane...

Was it going to Jamaica?

The rabbi pulls out a shofar...

Is it too soon for my annual "rabbi blowing the shofar" joke?

The other thing to bear in mind is that the CoE gets 26 bishops with voting rights into the House of Lords - the (very, very rough) equivalent would be if three or four US senators were bishops, without every being elected or accountable.

The House of Lords is nothing like the U.S. Senate. It is more like having a lobbyist in the senate, which I assume the church already has. The Lords has precious little real power. See here for a description:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords#Legislative_functions

On the actual sermon: I've been telling people, and when needed, doing this for years. I fully support the idea that someone who needs to eat or feed a child or even clothe a child should steal what they need, so long as they do not cause another to go hungry.

As for Legion's contention that this all comes out of the workers pocket I'd first note that people asked for a citation, not further assertion. I'd note secondly that large corporations keep as few people on the payroll as possible, especially the large stores like walmart or tesco.(the Euro version of walmart) When you add that to the fact that they already pay the minimum wage you arrive at the fact that they can't actually fire anyone because of losses. What really happens is that large companies assume a certain percentage of loss and cut that in half, then they use that figure as a target for loss prevention management to achieve.

The truth, which anyone who has talked with a loss prevention employee or been involved in that area of retail knows, is that the vast majority of theft is perpetrated by employees. people who have jobs and aren't desperate, or as desperate, as the person described in the sermon. At every retail job I've worked, which wasn't food related for the record, the percentage of employee to customer theft was somewhere around 8:2. That's a huge ratio.

Unfortunately, someone just skimming the headlines can get the impression that the priest is advocating stealing Christmas presents--and that's just silly. You give what YOU can, whether it's bought or not. Give home-made cookies, embroidery, knitting, hand-carved bit of wood or soap, a drawing, or a hand-drawn card and a promise of some activity together.

@Thorne #43:

If you're going to steal from the "big boys" who can absorb the loss, why not just steal from the church? Who can better afford it?

O dear. I'm forever griping at myself that i should go through all my Mark Twain books and save all the really good bits to a file that I might grab them whenever they come in handy. Problem is, of course, that there are so very many good bits!

For instance, I remember that somewhere in The Innocents Abroad Twain recounts his travels through miserably poor parts of Italy, adopting the tone of a very upright conservative American who has nothing but scorn for these lazy Italian Catholic wretches. Then comes the punchline, which is something like: If these people had any spine at all, they'd get up on their own two feet and rob their churches. Why, one or two gold candlesticks would feed an Italian family for a month!

@Rutee, #78:

Do you know how large chain stores absorb loss through theft? Payroll. You are not only stealing from the store. You are stealing money out of the pockets of the employees.

@Legion, #96:

It is common practice in the corporate world to make up for economic losses through a number of different ways including...to shit-can a lot of the people at the bottom of the company's totem pole.

It's not quite so ham-fisted as that; it's more like the death by a thousand cuts. I work for one of the Big Bookchains Beginning with B, and our corporate mantra, which we hear week in and week out, is, "payroll is the only expense we can effectively control." In practise, this means that if the shoplifters hit us hard, then Central Control in Pottsylvania cuts our weekly payroll budget to make up for the loss. So instead of 38 or 39 hour weeks we have to work 35 or 36 hours to make up for the losses. This is why, when you visit your local BBBwB this Festive Midwinter Buying Stuff Season, the checkout lines are insanely long, it's harder to find staff on the floor to help you find your books, and why the inventory crew gets a couple days behind unpacking the book shipments to get them on the floor in the first place. And, since all this results in our store falling behind in the sales goals that have been imposed on us by Central Control, we get our hours cut to make up for the losses. Not that I'm complaining!

I was pleased to see that he'd made this statement. Fuck the powers that be and the laws that keep them in honey whilst the poor continue to starve.
If you're poor, steal, filch, pirate and blag. not just the necessities either, help yourself to a few luxury goods and fuck the begrudgers.

I'd be a lot more amenable to churches if they had more people like this guys running them.

'When I give bread to the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no bread, they call me a communist. ...

"The House of Lords is nothing like the U.S. Senate. It is more like having a lobbyist in the senate"

Er ... no. The bishops have voting rights.

I said it's a very, very rough comparison, but here goes: the House of Lords is the second chamber of a bicameral parliament. With enough votes there, measures voted for by the (elected) Commons can be dropped or amended or even (rarely) vetoed altogether.

One consideration is always 'can we get this bill through the Lords?' - with enough time and effort, and with a clear mandate (on an election pledge or finance bill), the Lords will always buckle. But - as with the healthcare bill in the States - a lot of legislation is about compromise and the line of least resistance. Any bill that sought to curtail the power or, say, charitable status of the church would face problems.

No other religion, or subset even of Protestantism, is represented in the Lords. If it doesn't give them power or influence, they wouldn't have fought so hard to resist reform.

(Having skipped all the comments.)

While I recognize the hypocrisy of the priest that you are so intent on pointing out, I would like to point out that parasitism is not unnatural by any means. It is a very valid form of survival as the existence of heterotrophs proves. The value of theft over toil is born out by a billion years of evolution. It is only a human civilization that demonizes theft rather than look at it as a solution forced upon people by their situation. Merely to exist a human must rob other life forms, the only difference is the power to get away with it and a brain capable of rationalizing it away. If you have the power everyone else is a parasite but not you.

If you have the power everyone else is a parasite but not you.

Exactly.

@bookstore worker

Sounds like the chain has backed itself into a corner (hard to compete with Walmart, which can force its suppliers to lower their price, eh?). Isn't there a connection between employee presence and shrink? Stupid.

As for my retail experience, I guess it depends on the store--when valuables are locked up it's mostly the employees stealing but when they're free to grab like candy the public will steal like hell as well. Batteries, pills, inkjet cartridges. Oh yeah, and rich people steal like crazy. I think NY Times broke down their particular plight. You see, they're so conscious of all the minute gradations between $200k/annum vs. $250k vs. $500k and are so desperate to keep up with the Joneses that they're stretched to the financial limit. So you can see how at $200k your desperate social climber can be completely broke and just have to have that little item, makeup or candy or what-have-you.

The really big shrink these days is the inside/outside scam--some flunky gets a job in the store and knowingly rings up big ticket items with fraudulent bar codes. Mafia runs 'em in Jersey but in my locale it's little rings of friends and family. When they get too brazen the cashier will eventually get caught, but I understand the mob made buku bucks on the scheme. (Discipline, my friends.)

(buku is a regionalism, probably comes from beaucoup. fyi.)