The Church of England and Wonga - a tale of hypocrisy

[Eccentric]

Just introduce Kirchensteuer. That way, whoever wants to pay for Jesuses or Mohammads or Thoras or the Smurfs can do so at their own discretion. The Church of England would soon be bled dry, and could turn to Wonga for help.

[Halibut]

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?

 

That's a very naive and somewhat ignorant viewpoint Rupert.

The Occupy movement was/is a disparate group of individuals with a shared agenda but little in the way of power, structure or wealth - the Church has all of these in spades.

 

Your assumption that those who supported the Occupy movement didn't or don't contribute in the kinds of ways you're suggesting is naive.

 

It also strikes me that you're actually complaining about people complaining without actually considering what they were complaining about.

 

If we reduce this (for the sake of discussion) to its very simplest terms the Occupy movement is a call for a fairer society. Surely that's an ideal all but the most selfish and cynical would support?

 

You can carp from the sidelines about what they didn't do and about what they should/could do - but how about actually recognising that their aims are worthwhile and have made a valid and useful contribution to the national consciousness?

[Rupert_Baehr]

I'm not at all convinced that Occupy (in the UK or in a number of other places) actually did call for a 'fairer society.'

 

I heard about the 1% and the 99% but when I asked - on this forum - I was told: "Oh, we're not interested in the global 99% - just the 99% in the UK."

 

Practically everybody in the UK [somebody will always find an exception] is in the top 95% as far as 'World Wealth' goes.

 

Occupy talked about "1%" and "99%" but when they were pushed, it seems that wat they were really interested in doing was getting those people in this country who have more money than they do to give some of that money to them.

 

Forget about the real 99%. - They wanted the wealth to go from the top 1% to the 4% they form a part of.

 

I've no idea what 'good works' the Church of England (and particularly Sheffield Cathedral) do - but I am aware that they felt that Occupy had cost them money and reduced their ability to do those good works.

 

I'm not an Evangelist, nor am I a Missionary - but I do know a few people (included amongst which are my brother-in-law and his wife) who are.

 

They have spent much of their lives building schools and hospitals in the 3rd World.

 

They're certainly not in the 'Top 1%' - nor are they in the 'Top 5%'. They exist. They have enough food to survive; clothing and shelter (most of the time, anyway.) When they eventually have to stop work, they will have to hope somebody will look after them - because they won't have a pension, savings or any of the other 'goodies' most of us take for granted.

 

They don't go around bleating about 'how hard life is in the bottom 99% 94th to 98th percentile', they just get on with doing what they believe in.

 

Doing. Not talking about it - which is all Occupy seemed to do.

[Mr Bloom]

This expresses exactly how I feel about it Staunton.

They were very un-Christlike in their attitude.

 

 

Totally agree.

 

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.

 

Same here. Jesus taught us to love everyone, I'm sure he meant gays too.

 

 

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.

 

Agree, but please don't tar all Christians with the same brush, and definitely don't confuse them with the leadership of the CofE, some actually do care more about the teachings of Christ than the church and the status quo.

[Staunton]

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.

 

Yes, well stated Halibut.

 

The debate that Justin Welby has initiated in relation to the high street loan companies is an ideal opportunity for the Anglican Church to take their obligations to the poor more seriously.

 

Perhaps Sheffield Cathedral might be refreshed by the initiative, and decide to use their personnel and resources to develop a vigorous, high profile opposition to the government policies and business strategies that are impoverishing ordinary people and destroying communities across the the UK and the wider world.

[Mr Bloom]

I'm not at all convinced that Occupy (in the UK or in a number of other places) actually did call for a 'fairer society.'

 

I heard about the 1% and the 99% but when I asked - on this forum - I was told: "Oh, we're not interested in the global 99% - just the 99% in the UK."

 

Practically everybody in the UK [somebody will always find an exception] is in the top 95% as far as 'World Wealth' goes.

 

Occupy talked about "1%" and "99%" but when they were pushed, it seems that wat they were really interested in doing was getting those people in this country who have more money than they do to give some of that money to them.

 

Forget about the real 99%. - They wanted the wealth to go from the top 1% to the 4% they form a part of.

 

I've no idea what 'good works' the Church of England (and particularly Sheffield Cathedral) do - but I am aware that they felt that Occupy had cost them money and reduced their ability to do those good works.

 

I'm not an Evangelist, nor am I a Missionary - but I do know a few people (included amongst which are my brother-in-law and his wife) who are.

 

They have spent much of their lives building schools and hospitals in the 3rd World.

 

They're certainly not in the 'Top 1%' - nor are they in the 'Top 5%'. They exist. They have enough food to survive; clothing and shelter (most of the time, anyway.) When they eventually have to stop work, they will have to hope somebody will look after them - because they won't have a pension, savings or any of the other 'goodies' most of us take for granted.

 

They don't go around bleating about 'how hard life is in the bottom 99% 94th to 98th percentile', they just get on with doing what they believe in.

 

Doing. Not talking about it - which is all Occupy seemed to do.

 

“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.”

 

― Hélder Câmara

 

So your relatives are saints and Occupy are Communists, and I sadly conclude that you are part of the 'they'.

[Staunton]

I'm not an Evangelist, nor am I a Missionary - but I do know a few people (included amongst which are my brother-in-law and his wife) who are.

 

They have spent much of their lives building schools and hospitals in the 3rd World.

 

They're certainly not in the 'Top 1%' - nor are they in the 'Top 5%'. They exist. They have enough food to survive; clothing and shelter (most of the time, anyway.) When they eventually have to stop work, they will have to hope somebody will look after them - because they won't have a pension, savings or any of the other 'goodies' most of us take for granted.

 

I hope so too. After all, the Luke text also gives to the figure of Jesus the words ;...the worker is worthy of their wages'.

 

And as Mr Bloom reminds us, it is indeed the case that there are very many people within the Christian tradition who are fully open to the fundamental principles of their faith, and who are selfless and determined in their mission, both here in the UK and across the globe.

[Hairyloon]

Jesus was a socialist.

Was he?

Certainly set against the background he would have appeared very much so, but I don't believe he was in any way preaching socialism.

The Occupy movement was/is a disparate group of individuals with a shared agenda but little in the way of... structure...

That was their biggest failing... and they appeared to want to remodel society in their own image.

If we reduce this (for the sake of discussion) to its very simplest terms the Occupy movement is a call for a fairer society.

Sorry, I don't think we can do that... it's like saying the Labour party is a call for worker's rights.

[Staunton]

Those individuals who could be encountered as Occupy Sheffield, the ones who camped in the city centre for a number of weeks at the end of 2011 and into 2012, were just people, ordinary individuals with few resources, with their own circumstances and concerns, who came together in the moment because they each recognised that there was sometyhing very wrong happening in the world, and they felt a strong motivation to do something. They were not a pre-existing group or an organised movement. They came from a wide variety of background, and had a broad spectrum of concerns.

 

However, what did unite them was a fundamental motivation to highlight the failings of free market capitalism, or neoliberalism to give the system its formal title, a system that was and continues to concentrate wealth in very few hands, impoverishing the many in the process, and which had just caused a financial crisis that the taxpayer – that's you and me – had to bail out.

 

The people who were and largely remain within this system, the neoliberals, are very well resourced, well financed, very well organised, aided and protected by government and police, and continue to enjoy staggering wealth, opportunity, power and prestige. And they are continuing to push their policies of free market driven privatisation, deregulation and tax avoidance.

 

I wonder why some people are so vigorous in their hostility to a few ordinary folk who just felt they had to do something, whilst failing to take heed of the primary theme that Occupy articulated – the enormous social injustice of the financial crisis and the fact that ordinary people are the ones who are paying the price for corporate greed.

[alchresearch]

There was more in the news today about short term loans. One fact which seems to be overlooked is that 8 out of 10 people use them and pay back in a very short time and aren't ripped off or getting into debt.

 

So why is it the minority, those who let a small debt roll over and over, the ones who are being listened to?