The Church of England and Wonga - a tale of hypocrisy

[Hairyloon]

I don't know - why were you cynical and hostile towards them?

Mainly because they seemed to be more about protesting than attempting to affect a change.

Because of their refusal to accept responsibility for the actions of their members done in their name

And they displaced the genuinely homeless and disrupted the good works of the cathedral.

[Halibut]

Mainly because they seemed to be more about protesting than attempting to affect a change.

 

How, in your view, should they/could they have attempted to affect change?

[Hairyloon]

How, in your view, should they/could they have attempted to affect change?

 

Was there not a thread, many pages long on this subject?

Or has that been deleted?

 

As I believe I have said before, a good start would be to hold a formal public meeting followed by a referendum.

 

However, Occupy could not do that because that is part of the system that they reject.

[Staunton]

Was there not a thread, many pages long on this subject?

Or has that been deleted?

 

As I believe I have said before, a good start would be to hold a formal public meeting followed by a referendum.

 

However, Occupy could not do that because that is part of the system that they reject.

 

That's great Hairyloon. Please do hold such a meeting, arrange such a referendum - the issues highlighted by Occupy have not gone away. Indeed the threat that neoliberalism represents is more acute today than ever.

 

All contributions to the struggle against the corporate agenda are to be welcomed.

[Hairyloon]

That's great Hairyloon. Please do hold such a meeting, arrange such a referendum...

Ah yes, the voice of Occupy: sit tight whinging, and expect somebody else to do something.

 

---------- Post added 27-07-2013 at 13:23 ----------

 

All that Occupy Sheffield Cathedral ever did was hold meetings and (so they claim) "raise awareness".

If they had held just one meeting properly and used their energy to properly raise awareness of it then they would most likely have accomplished something.

[Staunton]

Ah yes, the voice of Occupy: sit tight whinging, and expect somebody else to do something.

 

You will have to forgive me, I am a little perplexed.

 

Occupy did do something - they did a great deal on behalf of ordinary people. They devoted their time and energy, establishing and maintaining a radical presence in the heart of our city, vocalising a wish for change, generating debate, getting the theme of global injustice onto the agenda. And they have endured a remarkable amount of scorn and criticism, as well as the hostility of the cathedral.

 

As I have pointed out elsewhere on this forum, Occupy were right, a point that has been acknowledged by many figures within the very system that Occupy came into existence to challenge.

[Hairyloon]

Occupy did do something - they did a great deal on behalf of ordinary people.

For example?

They devoted their time and energy, establishing and maintaining a radical presence in the heart of our city, vocalising a wish for change...

You mean they sat on their arses preaching to each other.

generating debate, getting the theme of global injustice onto the agenda.

Unfortunately, they rapidly shifted the focus of that debate onto themselves and their chosen location.

And they have endured a remarkable amount of scorn and criticism, as well as the hostility of the cathedral.

Most of it well deserved.

[Mr Bloom]

And they displaced the genuinely homeless and disrupted the good works of the cathedral.

 

DID THEY? Please provide evidence to support this statement.

 

---------- Post added 27-07-2013 at 17:17 ----------

 

The cathedral was vague and ambivalent during the initial stage of Occupy, and became highly cynical and hostile in the ensuing weeks.

 

But this is to miss the point - that the church failed to embrace the cry for justice that the Occupy movement represents. And in so doing they failed to live up to the fundamental principles of the faith they so publicly profess. This highlights the hypocrisy of the Established Church and represents a shameful legacy that is of devastating impact to the institution.

 

Absolutely correct.

[Rupert_Baehr]

If the church can do all those 'good works' (like going out and helping people, building schools and hospitals, looking after the poor etc) why couldn't Occupy do the same? - After all, every member of the Occupy movement in the UK was in the 'top 95% (or more) of global wealth.

 

They wouldn't have needed cathedrals, men in skirts, bells & smells or what have you to roll their sleeves up and help people in the third world, would they?

 

Or weren't Occupy really interested in the 95% of the World's population who have less than they do?

[Halibut]

The cathedral was vague and ambivalent during the initial stage of Occupy, and became highly cynical and hostile in the ensuing weeks.

 

But this is to miss the point - that the church failed to embrace the cry for justice that the Occupy movement represents. And in so doing they failed to live up to the fundamental principles of the faith they so publicly profess. This highlights the hypocrisy of the Established Church and represents a shameful legacy that is of devastating impact to the institution.

 

This expresses exactly how I feel about it Staunton.

They were very un-Christlike in their attitude.

 

Whilst Justin Welby's attitude is encouraging, I note with sadness his reluctance to shift on the gay marriage issue. He could learn a lot from the example of Archbishop Desmond Tutu who recently said ( and I'm paraphrasing here ) that he'd rather end up in hell than worship a homophobic God.

 

If the Church is to succeed and be truly important and worthwhile it needs to get a lot more radical and a lot less conservative.

Jesus was a radical; Jesus was a socialist. Those who call themselves Christian need to pay a deal less attention to the what the Church says and a rather more to the teachings of Christ.