I find it very interesting reading much of the comment on the Guardian's website about the interaction between the Occupy protestors and the administration at St Paul's.
The Guardian and its readership is pretty strongly anti-Christian. At any other time, they would be quite keen to wipe St Paul's off the map, to destroy Christianity, and to forget it ever existed. Likewise, very few of the Occupy protestors would normally have anything whatsoever to do with Christianity, and a good number would normally be hostile to the church.
Which is fair enough. I don't agree, but they're entitled to their beliefs. (And, for what it's worth, I'm less than impressed by the actions of the administrators at St Paul's - there's a reason I've been referring to them as 'administrators' rather than 'clergy'.)
But I have to ask: if you're so virulently anti-Christian, what exactly gives you the right to lecture the church for not supporting your pet cause? Especially since the Occupy movement haven't actually told us what they want, only what they're against - and hating the 1% is not a Christian attitude.