4thought.tv

I do not think that pitching a tent outside St Paul's, creating an environmental eyesore is a way of protesting against capitalism. I can imagine many of these youngsters have all the techno-devices you can imagine, perhaps even a key to own flat and car, a few credit cards and every 'brand' on their outfits. There are many more effective ways one could sabotage the 'greedy of this world', perhaps already by looking at greed in one's life, inc. stopping the mindset about entitlement (to brands, expensive weddings etc...). After all, if there was no demand for consumerism gone mad, then the supply would dry out... If the prostesters need the current form of 'bounding' for bounding purpose then why not create this in other ways (e.g. some alternative to the traditional music festival. How about having other types of festivals: festival of peace, anti-consumerism etc...

Yes I agree with Ian Chamberlain and I am very excited for the Church of England that they have this opportunity to make the Church relevant to the 21st century by doing as Jesus did and protecting the poor against the abuses of the rich and money lenders. I was very pleased to see the Church of England as large corporate investors stood up against excessive PLC board of director salaries and bonuses. I believe many british people will stand by the protestors and St Paul's Cathedral if the authoirities try to stop their lawful and fully justified protests against the greed of PLC and senior banking directors whose irresponsibility has caused suffering to the innocent and yet who continue to vote themselves huge salaries and bonuses at the expense of shareholders, customers, taxpayers and employees facing redundancy. Of course the Church should side against the immoral and greedy PLC directors who hurt everyone else and reap huge rewards for themselves.

If the Suffragettes had not protested women would not have the vote.

If those who rightly thought slavery was wrong had not protested and campaigned we would still have slavery.

If the like of my father had not fought in WWII we would have even worse fascists in power.

Change does not come about without some sacrifice.

I am not a religious person, but my understanding of the bible would lead me to the conclusion that Christ would side with the underdog. Remember he threw the money lenders out of the temple.

All these protesters want is a fairer distribution of wealth. Only those with vested interests, the greedheads, would oppose that surely.

What little I've read of the New Testament suggests Jesus kept out of Politics. During his lifetime the Jews revolted against the Romans and he kept well clear of that one.
Think there is a big difference between the Afro-American Civil Rights movement and a few people in tents. Maybe the movement will grow but can't see it myself. Nowadays people resolve stuff in the Courts.

I instinctively say yes. But, with the greatest respect to those posing this question, this is the wrong question. It's not a matter of taking sides, it's a matter of maintaining an open mind and not being judgmental. I don't pretend to be an expert on the Christian faith, but my understanding of what it is to be a Christian is to not cast the first stone. Unfortunately, it's clear that those in charge of St Paul's were only too happy and eager to join the mob in condemning the protesters. But even the manner in which they did so was dishonest and deliberately divisive - forcing two people to resign from their jobs in the process. Their false "risk to health and safety' claim was clearly a disingenuous, cowardly response, and will, in my opinion, tarnish the reputation of all those involved for a long time.

Personally, I support the right of these protesters to protest peacefully in a manner that is most effective without causing loss or injury to people or businesses - other than those businesses that have caused the current economic situation. Marches are not effective. Occupations are.

Today we've seen a US cop liberally spraying pepper spay directly into the faces of peaceful protesters sitting on the ground occupying the University of California. Pepper spray is an offensive weapon that is sanctioned as a non lethal solution to pacify a THREAT to an officer of the law or members of the public. At UC it was used where no threat existed. That is assault. That is evidence of a police state.

The British Police take their cues from the US. These tactics have and will be used here. That is what the Christian Church is aligning itself with if it opposes these protesters in the way they have.

Indeed it should be paramount that the Church of England support and protect the poor.

As Quakers say
'There is something sacred in all people.
All People are equal before God.
Religion is about the whole of life'
'True religion leads to respect for the earth and and all life upon it'

However, speaking of the Church of England, this simple suggestion for human conduct does not appear to apply.