Nice to be back

Nice to be back from my periodic break.
Thank you , dear readers for your messages and comments which you left for me while I was on break. I have replied them all.
I have not posted on my blogs for some weeks now because I have been on a lovely one-month break and that , usually, for me is a time of relaxation , of peace and quiet to "renew strength".
Do take a break. It is will do you good .
While away, there were loads of juicy topical issues that I would have loved to write blogs on; like among others , the Blackberry phones shutdown , the economic fiasco in Europe and the recent an still-raging invasion of St.Paul' Cathedral , London by anti -capitalism protesters.
But,I refrained from blogging because while on such breaks, my policy has always been to limit my time spent on internet activities, to the barest minimum.

The live-in camp site on the grounds of St. Paul's Cathedral have taken a new dimension. The tents are increasing in number and the protesters have vowed to set up similar camps all over London.
Latest news is that the church has decided to evict the campers by resorting to legal action.
This would be a lengthy battle by the church and could mean the nuisance been caused by the live-in camps could remain there till the Spring if legal action is taken to evict the campers.
I have written about this in "Trashing St.Paul's Cathedral: time to clear out!" in my other blog, "Pneumalithos ", yesterday.

Rights to protest is one thing; but setting up tents all over London has never achieved anything. Ask the live-in campers who have been protesting in front of Parliament Square , for years now, what they have achieved , so far.
Apart from being irritants to West minister councils officials , these protesters in Parliament Square, have not been able to make the government officials in WHITEHALL to budge an inch.
What would happen is that these live-in camps would metamorphose into eye-sores , festering, junk-littered shacks and
ghettos which would attract miscreants and would provide free accommodation for squatters and and all sorts of freeloaders and for tourists who do not want to pay high hotel bills in Central London.
Is the trashing of London the goal of the anti-capitalism and climate change protesters and is this the panacea for the "evils" of the banks and of capitalism?

Capitalism and industrialisation are the wheels that drive all modern societies. Banking and economic policies are the lubricants that oil these wheels.
Have all the protesters themselves not benefited in one form or the other from the gains of capitalism and the banking industry ?
Their ability to set up live-in camps and even the tents and everything being used by the protesters have come into existence from capitilist and banking activities.
It has been two weeks now since the camping protests started and the protesters are yet to articulate cogent reasons for their demonstrations and to tell the world what are their own proposed alternatives to the "monsters" of banking business and capitalism which the protesters are so very much against.
Are they suggesting that the wealthy capitalists stop their entrepreneurial zeal and must apologise to the poor?
Apologise for what?
Or that all banks and factories should close shop , reduce their influence or should OPEN THEIR VAULTS and distribute their funds to the world's poor and needy souls in order to bring about the "Utopian equal sharing of resources and emancipation of the disadvantaged poor of planet earth"?
Or may be we should all of us; unlike the workaholic bankers and wealthy industrialists; all be equal by staying at home, swirling cognac , switching TV channels, making babies (breeding!) and we could actually , " change the world" by mouthing naive and ridiculous slogans like "eat beans , make gas , not war"; "peace, love , freedom and brotherhood", "make love , not war " ?

Talking of choosing venues for live-in protest camps ; the protesters should be spoilt for choices of venues in London!
As to choosing venues for such camps, why choose the iconic St . Paul's Cathedral, London as the ideal location for their protests?
The few protesters who arrived with their tents where prevented by the Police from setting up camp in front of the London Stock Exchange , just opposite St. Paul's; but they were not prevented from doing so in front of the Cathedral.

The Cathedral officials welcomed them with hot mugs of coffee, sandwiches and words of encouragement ; preaching about how "Jesus was the friend of the Poor and the Chief supporter of all disenfranchised humanity".
And so Jesus Christ is , indeed.
Spurred on by such a warm and friendly support from St.Paul's officials ,the campers became emboldened and they increased in number , overnight !
They quickly realised they had struck gold , by setting up tents on the church ground! This cathedral venue has become a popular sit-tight ground with the protesters because they know their invasion of it is causing a lot of anger to millions of people in the UK.
Also, not only St. Paul's , but the Church as a Body and Christians ; have always been regarded as the docile, soft-touch target for attacks and for disrespect by this society.
From this church grounds, the protesters could shout their slogans and insults at bankers and other financial workers in the city ,who are passing by or working inside their offices which are within earshot and eye range of the protest camp!
But should the reasoning here be that the more the public anger and irritation caused by the camping protesters, the more attention they would receive and the quicker would be the "fall of the monsters of capitalism and industrialization" ?
Says who? How can this change the mind of capitalists or of anybody?
Or what are their GOALS for this continual trashing of the church premises?

While it is the right of the campers to exercise their freedom of speech and freedom to set up trashy camps wherever they choose and for them to do whatsoever their hearts desire inside those tents; then how about they insisting on exercising such rights and freedom to protest and to gain maximum publicity , by setting tents not only in St. Paul's Cathedral; but also setting up similar camps in front of near by Buckingham Palace and St.James Palace ,on Pall Mall, on the Oxford/Regents /Bond streets mega shopping axis , at the gates of No.10 Downing Street and Scotland Yard; or at the front doors of the Fleet Street, London offices of some of the world's biggest newspapers?
Better still , how about setting up similar camps on the grounds of the London Central Mosque in Regent Parks Road, London ; or inside the grounds of the massive Hindu Temple in Neasden , in North London?
Yes, let's do that !
Protesters , bring it on ,express your right of freedom to protest and go set up live-in tents inside a mosque grounds !
I assure you that, because any mosque invasion by protesters would become not a "what can the Church do to anybody " situation ; the Police would spring into action, immediately, to clear the protesters from the mosque and since this would be an invasion of a mosque premises; there will be deafening silence from the very vocal supporters including the "celebrity" supporters who are right now , encouraging the sit -tight campers in St. Paul's Cathedral!

There have been comments that the church should do the "Christian thing" by not evicting the campers.
Also , the church 's decision to clamp down on the campers has led to the resignation of two of her top clerics who are opposed to eviction of the campers; as at yesterday.
Some newspaper comments have predicted that the church's action and the resignation of its clerics could lead to the "opening of a can of worms in St. Paul's Cathedral"!
Really , a can of worms for the church's decision to maintain an open-door policy and a hand of friendship to the campers and for allowing even a single tent to be set up on the church premises?
How about opening the can of worms of what goes on among the campers on the church grounds , even in broad daylight?
Lest we forget , the church and not the protesters , is the wronged party here.
This invasion of the church's premises has resulted in utter disregard and disrespect for what the iconic church stands for and for the peaceful appeals of the church officials to the protesters to quit the church premises.
The church grounds have been trashed by the protesters and the church has had to closed its doors for days!

The lesson in all this for the church and for everyone is that it doesn't pay to operate an open door policy to all and sundry into one's home and into one's life .
If the church officials had taken the time out of their very busy schedules , to retrieve and study their Bibles; which could be gathering dust on some shelves inside the church, before this invasion by the protesters; they would not have had this "What would Jesus Do? " situation in their hands.
"What would Jesus do ?"
Would Jesus invade ANYBODY'S premises, desecrate and trash it ,refuse to leave when asked to do so and sit-tight ; shouting childish slogans and insults at passers by from there? Would Jesus repay His hosts with ingratitude and disrespect which would make them to resort to legal action to evict Him from their premises?
What has Jesus Christ said to warn Believers about unwise decisions ?
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you ".
Matthew 7:6.

Who do people think Jesus Christ is?
Is Christ a mealy-mouthed pacifist like the Church , the Body of Christ in England has become, when faced with undeserved, unprovoked and cowardly opposition?
Always willing to compromise , to be slapped on both cheeks , to be silent and docile; ever- ready to be used and then discarded at will , by all and sundry?
No, Jesus Christ is none of these!
Of course ,once again, the Church is now been blackmailed into silence and put on the defensive by the "What would Jesus Do?" slogan ,which is often used by those who themselves have done and are doing what Jesus would not do!
This "WHAT WOULD JESUS DO? " situation on the grounds of St. Paul's is just a tip of the iceberg of what is in store for the Church in this age of atheism and secularism.
It is now obvious that the Church cannot continue to be silent and slow to grasp situations and to see where its opponents are heading , even when they seem "harmless".
What would Jesus do , indeed!
Winning souls should not entail the Church adopting a stance of being compromising , apologetic and defensive of the doctrines of Christ .
Whenever the Church is confronted by cowards who have the effrontery to do and to say to the Church and to Christians what they would not dare to do or say to other sections of the society, the Church must not be unable or be slow to say a firm, "NO!".