|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Permalink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/659
Fulcrum Subjects: Pastoral / Politics and Faith Other articles by Jon Kuhrt are available from this site Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum See the 13 comments on this article The Price of Everything...and the Value of Nothingby Jon Kuhrtfirst published on http://jonkuhrt.wordpress.com/
The right motives I have been thinking about motives in relation to the campaign. Protesting involves conflict – because we believe that something is wrong and we want it changed. But when we engage in conflict, it can be hard to maintain the right motives because the desire ‘to win’ can override everything else. Pride and vanity crouch at the door – and never more so than when we are convinced we are ‘right’. Real Value? So despite the focus we are putting on Ross Williams in this campaign, its important to say that this is not about animosity towards him personally or any of his staff. Rather than disliking him, I see someone whose values are messed up. In an interview with The Times in 2009, Ross Williams said this: “I have sports cars, a mansion, I’m learning to fly helicopters and I have a great lifestyle but I will make the real money when we sell the firm for £50m to £60m once I’ve created a business with real value.” Real value. What ‘real value’ actually means lies at the heart of this whole thing. You see ‘real value’ does not consist in how much something costs, or how much we can make from it. When money does become the sole measure of value, society becomes cynical and twisted. This is what Jessie J was getting at in her song Price Tag – its in my head as my kids have been singing it all summer: “Seems like everyone’s got a price I wonder how they sleep at night When the sale comes first and the truth comes second” Deep down we know that true value is not about the ‘money, money, money’. Sure having enough money makes a big difference, but we know that the best things in life – love, friendship and family – cannot be bought or traded. Definition of a cynic And this is why we need to stop these marriage break-up adverts because they are about as cynical as possible because they are making money from ruining the best things we have. The adverts and Ross Williams’ quote are rooted in the same value system which perfectly matches Oscar Wilde’s definition of a cynic: Someone who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Actually, real value comes from what we give to others – this is the true measure of our lives. For me, as a Christian, I believe that this is at the core of the teaching of Jesus' who said so much about the dangers of wealth and the importance of serving others. It is a ‘real value’ summed up well by Martin Luther King: “Everybody can be great because anybody can serve. You don’t have to have a college degree to serve…You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love” Our country does not need anymore cynical adverts which seek to make money out of the ruining whats valuable. We need more hearts full of grace, more souls generated by love. This is how we will build a society with ’real value’. And, you know the best news? It’s never too late for Ross Williams to get on board…
Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum Forum Posts About This Article:Posted by: Dave Thursday 13 October 2011 - 12:26pm How Global Personals operate seems to be a bit of a mystery or at least hidden form view. Some of their major partners are listed on White Label Marketing which is "part of" Global Personals. As far as I can make out the individual enters into a contract with Global Personals for affairsdating.net or maritalaffair.co.uk. The terms of use / member terms and conditions state that "The Site is operated by Global Personals Limited... to deliver a service for adults to meet each other and communicate online " and payments are made to Global Personals. The visibility of the "partner" varies. Some such as magazine publishers are selling based on their existing reputation. Others are invisible apart from the the web site name. The nearest analogy I can come up with is an independent financial advisor who helps individuals make applications in their own name. The crucial difference is that the building society does not know what is said at the meeting but Global Personals can easily review the contents of the web site. Dave Posted by: Deleted user 2205 Saturday 1 October 2011 - 09:28am Well done Jon. I have been away from these forums for a long time but these efforts are good. As the old saying goes "For evil to succeed - a good man need only do nothing!" God bless Posted by: Jon Kuhrt Sunday 11 September 2011 - 08:43pm I thought that people might be interested in this interview with Ross Williams that was in the Times on line. In it, he discusses his business and philosophy: “I have sports cars, a mansion, I’m learning to fly helicopters and I have a great lifestyle but I will make the real money when we sell the firm for £50m to £60m once I’ve created a business with real value.” 'Real value' is a very interesting phrase. I think this fits perfectly with Oscar Wilde's definition of a cynic - someone who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing... Maybe in phoning the company we can represent those who think that 'real value' does not consist simply in £s and $s - in line with Luke 12:15 Read the full interview...http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/leisure/article6898023.ece Posted by: Jon Kuhrt Sunday 11 September 2011 - 06:12pm Thanks WA and it’s a good question. I don’t want to disrupt in the sense of bring their lines down – I would not presume to get that much of a response - and I don’t want anyone to act in a harassing way, or an abusive or rude manner at all. But I do want the staff at Global Personals to hear something of the reality and consequences of their work. It may not be their direct responsibility but I think if receptionists, PAs and staff generally hear something which disrupts their day because it is a heartfelt concern then its worth it. They will feedback to their managers, it will affect the office and this is OK because they sense something of the reality of what they are helping to bring about. Also, press and coverage help because any commercial enterprise wants to convey a positive image to the public. Our aim is to connect the toxicity of what they are doing to the name of their company – because its them that’s running and promoting it. It’s an unveiling of reality. Personally, I have prayed and thought about this after the last campaign. To be honest, I could well do without this kind of thing and I want to act from good motives. I do not feel any animosity towards Ross Williams personally or any of his staff – I bet that a lot of them are nice people and quite similar to a lot of my best mates – but what they are doing is wrong, plain and simple. Rather than surprise, what worked last time, was the moral power and clarity that a large number of people had about the cause – and this was amplified by the reasonable way that people expressed themselves. If anyone phones in and is abusive then it compromises the message and undermines what we are doing – because then we lose the moral power. Without being OTT, its exactly what Martin Luther King went on about. And we don’t have anyone threatening to kill us (well not yet…) Posted by: WATERANGEL Sunday 11 September 2011 - 05:25pm Jon I have already stated that i agree with you, however i need to ask you a question about the disruption approach, if members of this forum and beyond , disrupt the telephone lines is that not walking very close to the line of harrassment. This would be very serious, last time your protest worked because it had the surprise element, and it was a new approach, bringing down their phone lines if they are not breaking the law, will put the caller in the position of breaking the law and as i said being charged with harassment. You may also put yourself at risk of being charged with intimidating behaviour and incitement to cause a breach of the peace electronically that is.. I am not stating this as fact but are asking the question of risk based on the way the law has been used before, to protect the immoral as it is not illegal. Waterangel Posted by: User 2449 Sunday 11 September 2011 - 01:57pm I've sent an email to Ross Williams, as it's outside office hours so I couldn't get through to anyone on the phone. I like the idea of blitzing their phones will lots of calls. It's well worth the effort. I ran three schools and saw at first hand how the impact on children of their parents having affairs was devastating. Posted by: Jon Kuhrt Sunday 11 September 2011 - 10:01am Thanks Ken. I like the idea of one of these sites aimed at Christians! ‘Attractive Church Warden seeks new Vicar to dominate. Diocesan faculties not required’ More seriously…I wonder if the accusations about being prudes etc is just one of the risks that needs to be taken. I know people do not like a ‘spot it and stop it’ approach (as pastiched by Adrian Plass in his classic ‘Sacred Diary’) but that’s why I try and talk about this from a social justice perspective. We should not talk about this in a way that sounds like we want to turn the clock back to some mythical age of respect for marriage - but because we want to make a stand because of the cost and danger of this kind of free market libertarian approach when it is applied to marriage and relationships. I am on the left politically but I have chosen to write and speak about family issues because I believe in a synthesis of personal and social responsibility. I believe that this is where my Christian beliefs lead me – but it means that I have been written off as a closet Tory by fellow Labour members or as a reactionary by more liberal Christians who like it when I talk about material poverty but get nervous when the focus gets put relationships. I don’t know whether this little push for action will lead to much – but I have been surprised before about where these things lead and I am prepared to be surprised as to where this goes. But I do know that I am glad I have acted and done something – however partial and inconsequential – because I don’t want to stand to one side and watch the growth and normalisation of these things in a society where I live and not do anything. Posted by: WATERANGEL Sunday 11 September 2011 - 09:13am My mailbox has been targeted by this company, i do not open the link, but i can understand how people having a bad day and feeling a bit lonely might, i can also understand how some may see it as harmless in the first instance, it never ceases to amaze me how people underestimate emotional vulnerablity. Harmless it is not there is no doubt in my mind about that. However in order to stop them there needs to be proof of "the harm caused" so for instance is there any direct evidence of anyone leaving their family because of it, or is there any record of anyone commiting suicide because of it, is there any link or proof of inticement to the "viewing of pornography" and the risk of children having access to it". For where children are involved there is i would suggest a real risk of children being sexually abused because of it. In todays world nearly all children who are sexually abused, the perpetrator will have used these sites. There is something about the mentality and deceipt that is involved which increases such risk to children. Do these people really want to be associated with the increased risk of paedophilia. It is more dangerous than anyone wants to admit, the main problem is the deceipt, that is what can does and has led to children being abused. They would in the end rather admit to having an affair than to abusing a child, but the same mindset is present, it is all about sexual activity in a way and place that it should not occur.It is about inappropriate use of "sexualised" language in inappropriate circumstances or out of context all signs of the perpetrators losing a grip on the reality of the human beings involved. Now half of the government will hate me as half of them are guilty of such inappropriateness. You need to deal with that first, as they are the ones setting the laws surrounding these sites. It is all based on this question "is it immoral or is it illegal" the failure of them acknowledging that though this issue is a "morality" one the consequences nearly always end up as a legal issue. Waterangel Posted by: Ken Petrie Saturday 10 September 2011 - 11:57pm I think what is happening is utterly detestable, but I can't see any way to protest against it that won't simply give them publicity and make Christians look like prudes. OK, we can see it's antisocial, contrary to the public interest and (I would say) evil, but they will be able to cry "censorship" and "fredom of speech". Presumably, Christians would not on the whole use this company's sites unless they also have one specifically aimed at us, in which case a quiet awareness-raising campaign about what the company also does is probably our most effective tactic. Any attempt at public condemnation would just backfire. Posted by: Dave Saturday 10 September 2011 - 04:35pm Jon, Perhaps their advertising policy is self defeating. These adverts appeal to those who want a certain sort of relationship but will also put off those who who are looking for something else. I expect they allow you to specify your preferences but first impressions are crucial. Telephonic disruption will cost you as much time as it costs them. E-mails are easy to block. Dave Posted by: Jon Kuhrt Saturday 10 September 2011 - 10:36am Hi David - well I don't want to sound OTT - but I think the following ways are possible: - lots of phone calls is disruptive - making employees aware of the consequences of the business they work for is disruptive - telling the truth to expose toxic work and affect their reputation is disruptive Its only a little campaign but I think its worth it - alongside campaigning on lots of other issues regarding material poverty and injustice such as great groups like Church Action on Poverty do. But I don't see them as mutually exclusive and there is power when traditionally liberal and traditionally more conservative people work together rather than arguing. thanks for your interest, Jon Posted by: Dave Saturday 10 September 2011 - 09:16am Jon says "we will try to disrupt your business" What has he in mind? Pickets? Cyber attacks? or just bad publicity within the Christian community? There are greater threats to family life such as a benefits system which rewards breakups. Dave 
Posted by: Stephen Kuhrt
Saturday 10 September 2011 - 07:24am
We have just published 'Stop poisoning our communities with your marriage break-up adverts - an open letter to Ross Williams, CEO of Global Personals' by Jon Kuhrt. Please use this thread for discussion. |
LATEST
|
