A country run by the church. Of course we are.

[Tyrone Biggums]

Quite, If you weren't a productive, able, loyal Aryan who fitted into the Nazi ideals of looks, behaviour and ancestry in all likelyhood you would be murdered. He probably hated religious people too though the little prick.

The fact Bishop von Galen was able to deliver scathing sermons against the Nazis during the war and not be executed showed that Hitler knew to be wary of outwardly attacking the churches.

Hitler is quoted as having said: "The fact that I remain silent in public over Church affairs is not in the least misunderstood by the sly foxes of the Catholic Church, and I am quite sure that a man like Bishop von Galen knows full well that after the war I shall extract retribution to the last farthing".[49]

 

[Nibble]

The fact Bishop von Galen was able to deliver scathing sermons against the Nazis during the war and not be executed showed that Hitler knew to be wary of outwardly attacking the churches.

Ah, that makes sense.

 

[Machiavelli]

You're about 500 years out on this one. The country's run by capitalists and especially over the past three or four decades the financial sector.

 

[Nibble]

You're about 500 years out on this one. The country's run by capitalists and especially over the past three or four decades the financial sector.

Good point. Another point is that the church holds shares in such organisations and therefore is part of this sector.

 

[Machiavelli]

Good point. Another point is that the church holds shares in such organisations and therefore is part of this sector.

But only a minor part, and the vast majority of its assets are in property rather than finance. And to be fair to the church -- and I say this as an atheist -- they're about the only establishment organisation that have spoke out against the financial sector in the past few years. Occupy LSX, for instance, had to leave the (private land in the) City of London and encamped on church property at St Paul's.

 

[Seagull58]

Cameron is kind of correct. Our country isn't Christian by majority but it is run by Christians. And this comes as no surprise, The Church, just like the top 1% have always bled the rest of the country dry for their own gain. Parliament is chock full of bishops who have huge influence.

Of course, Cameron is only saying this to mop up some Ukip votes, the man doesn't have a genuine bone in his body and would say anything to stay clinging on to the gravy train he managed to stow away on.

The UK is culturally and historically Christian. That is true regardless of the political angle in saying so.

 

[dingodan]

The UK is culturally and historically Christian. That is true regardless of the political angle in saying so.

/Thread

 

[beorhthelm]

Good point. Another point is that the church holds shares in such organisations and therefore is part of this sector.

what a bizarre point of view: does this apply to everyone with a pension or savings account too?

 

[Nibble]

what a bizarre point of view: does this apply to everyone with a pension or savings account too?

What a bizarre question that you clearly already think you hold an answer to. I mean seriously, If you are going to throw yourself into a debate you need to urgently start thinking things through. The Church of England has huge assets as well as large responsibilities. In 2009 it lost £1.3 billion through its investments in shares and property. In April 2011 it announced that its assets increased in 2010 from £4.8 billion to £5.3 billion. We are not talking a few thousand popped into the average savings/retirement account. That kind of money influences things.

 

[Nibble]

But only a minor part, and the vast majority of its assets are in property rather than finance. And to be fair to the church -- and I say this as an atheist -- they're about the only establishment organisation that have spoke out against the financial sector in the past few years. Occupy LSX, for instance, had to leave the (private land in the) City of London and encamped on church property at St Paul's.

A common misconception, It does own a VAST property portfolio, however, from 2012 the Church had just over half of its assets invested in UK and foreign company shares, private equity investment in non-stock market companies, and fixed-interest bonds. Their non-property portfolio includes: alcohol manafacturers and distributers, strategic military sales, and high risk financial loan companies. Nice.

Here is how the church polices it's own ethical investment policy:

The Church does not invest in a company that derives more than these percentages of profit from certain industries:

Pornography - 3%
Alcohol - 5% (recently reduced from 25%)
Strategic Military equipment - 10%
Gambling - 25%
Tobacco - 25%
Doorstep lenders - 25%
Pawnbrokers - 25%


Of course, The Church has an open door policy on some industries, for example it's holdings in companies such as BP, Shell, Exxon Mobil, Tesco, Unilever (both of which came joint 100th in the ethical ranking of Britains Least Ethical 100 Companies study in the Guardian), Caterpillar, Nestle (which breaks ever WHO marketing convention going), Catholic aid agency CAFOD, War on Want, Anglican bishops and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines have all condemned mining companies such as BHP Biliton, Rio Tinto and Anglo American for their human rights abuses and destruction of the environment. The Church has a combined shareholding of £62 million in these three companies alone.

The proportion of its assets in residential property has now halved from 22 per cent in 2003 to just 11 per cent at the end of 2008. This includes the sale of Octavia Hill Housing in London which provided accommodation for key workers on low incomes, such as nurses and young teachers. It brought protests not just from residents but also from MPs, a bishop and Church Action on Poverty and was even featured on the BBC1 'Watchdog' programme, where the Secretary to the Church Commissioners was asked “what Jesus would do” confronted with the choice between people and profit.

The Church now lists instead a number of retail parks amongst its property investments, suggesting to many that its own answer to the policy challenge of the Christian message is to favour alleged (but questionable) pragmatism over deeper principle. Or at least to accept rather than to challenge the constraints imposed by law and statute through the Church’s chosen entanglement with Crown and state

Hugely ethical .

 

[beorhthelm]

What a bizarre question that you clearly already think you hold an answer to. I mean seriously, If you are going to throw yourself into a debate you need to urgently start thinking things through. The Church of England has huge assets as well as large responsibilities. In 2009 it lost £1.3 billion through its investments in shares and property. In April 2011 it announced that its assets increased in 2010 from £4.8 billion to £5.3 billion. We are not talking a few thousand popped into the average savings/retirement account. That kind of money influences things.

you asserted that the church holds shares, therefore is part of the financial sector (for bad), and to infer they run the country though this indirectly. seems this assertion would apply to anyone with shares - bad people like pensioners. when actually what you mean is that through their share holdings they should put pressure on corporations to change their ways. which is a very good point, shame you didnt make it sound like this. i dont know why debates have to involve personal insults, when a bit of clearing up the point would suffice.

 

[Silk]

A common misconception, It does own a VAST property portfolio, however, from 2012 the Church had just over half of its assets invested in UK and foreign company shares, private equity investment in non-stock market companies, and fixed-interest bonds. Their non-property portfolio includes: alcohol manafacturers and distributers, strategic military sales, and high risk financial loan companies. Nice.

Here is how the church polices it's own ethical investment policy:

The Church does not invest in a company that derives more than these percentages of profit from certain industries:

Pornography - 3%
Alcohol - 5% (recently reduced from 25%)
Strategic Military equipment - 10%
Gambling - 25%
Tobacco - 25%
Doorstep lenders - 25%
Pawnbrokers - 25%


Of course, The Church has an open door policy on some industries, for example it's holdings in companies such as BP, Shell, Exxon Mobil, Tesco, Unilever (both of which came joint 100th in the ethical ranking of Britains Least Ethical 100 Companies study in the Guardian), Caterpillar, Nestle (which breaks ever WHO marketing convention going), Catholic aid agency CAFOD, War on Want, Anglican bishops and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines have all condemned mining companies such as BHP Biliton, Rio Tinto and Anglo American for their human rights abuses and destruction of the environment. The Church has a combined shareholding of £62 million in these three companies alone.

The proportion of its assets in residential property has now halved from 22 per cent in 2003 to just 11 per cent at the end of 2008. This includes the sale of Octavia Hill Housing in London which provided accommodation for key workers on low incomes, such as nurses and young teachers. It brought protests not just from residents but also from MPs, a bishop and Church Action on Poverty and was even featured on the BBC1 'Watchdog' programme, where the Secretary to the Church Commissioners was asked “what Jesus would do” confronted with the choice between people and profit.

The Church now lists instead a number of retail parks amongst its property investments, suggesting to many that its own answer to the policy challenge of the Christian message is to favour alleged (but questionable) pragmatism over deeper principle. Or at least to accept rather than to challenge the constraints imposed by law and statute through the Church’s chosen entanglement with Crown and state

Hugely ethical .

I can understand that there would have to be a level of pragmatism; it's probably extremely difficult to invest 100% ethically. However I am shocked by this info. What is your source?

 

[Nibble]

I can understand that there would have to be a level of pragmatism; it's probably extremely difficult to invest 100% ethically. However I am shocked by this info. What is your source?

Channel 4's Factchecker website. Its all on public record though.

 

[Silk]

Channel 4's Factchecker website.

Thanks. I'll have a look.

 

[Nibble]

you asserted that the church holds shares, therefore is part of the financial sector (for bad), and to infer they run the country though this indirectly. seems this assertion would apply to anyone with shares - bad people like pensioners. when actually what you mean is that through their share holdings they should put pressure on corporations to change their ways. which is a very good point, shame you didnt make it sound like this. i dont know why debates have to involve personal insults, when a bit of clearing up the point would suffice.

If you cannot grasp the difference between a worker putting a few grand into a pension scheme or dabbling in stocks and and a global institution having billions of pounds worth of holdings in global corporations then I cannot clear anything up for you. You think the church brought shares in Exxon, BP and arms manafacturers in order to "change their ways"?? Frankly laughable.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

If you cannot grasp the difference between a worker putting a few grand into a pension scheme or dabbling in stocks and and a global institution having billions of pounds worth of holdings in global corporations then I cannot clear anything up for you. You think the church brought shares in Exxon, BP and arms manafacturers in order to "change their ways"?? Frankly laughable.

It doesn't alter the validity of your point, but there is actually a church-based organisation called ECCR (Ecumenical Committee for Corporate Responsibility, or something similar), which started off some 20 years ago (a colleague of mine was involved heavily. It did actually start with the aim of buying shares in companies specifically so that it could investigate what they did and have the right to engage with them and ask questions at AGM's and at other times. It produced a lot of good work about the dodgy things that some good companies got up to.

http://www.eccr.org.uk/AboutUs - here's a link to it.... hopefully.

 

[Nibble]

It doesn't alter the validity of your point, but there is actually a church-based organisation called ECCR (Ecumenical Committee for Corporate Responsibility, or something similar), which started off some 20 years ago (a colleague of mine was involved heavily. It did actually start with the aim of buying shares in companies specifically so that it could investigate what they did and have the right to engage with them and ask questions at AGM's and at other times. It produced a lot of good work about the dodgy things that some good companies got up to.

http://www.eccr.org.uk/AboutUs - here's a link to it.... hopefully.

I think I have heard of this. A good thing indeed.

 

[On the Left Wing]

It all smacks of John Major's 1990's ill-fated Return to Victorian values to me:
http://seagullnic.wordpress.com/2014/04/28/god-knows-theres-a-heaven-god-knows-its-out-of-sight/