European Union

A Christian approach to immigration cannot be simply opening the doors to everyone

One of the handful of joys that blogging brings me is the opportunity to get to know a lot of people who have a similar interest in the relationship between religion and politics. I met up with one of these friends a couple of days ago during a rare day in London. It’s always helpful to share thoughts on the implications of what’s currently in the news and our discussion quickly turned to the subject of Europe and the Leave campaigns. We are both fairly close to the centre ground politically, but I’m more inclined to think that leaving the EU will favourable than he is. It’s not that he has a strong desire to stay in; it’s more that he hasn’t found himself being persuaded either way so far.

The thing is, as we discussed, when it comes to 2017 we’ll all be left forced to choose one of two options: stay on the fence and let others vote to determine our country’s fate, or take the plunge, make a decision and vote accordingly. For those who believe that the choice to vote is as much of a duty as a right, opting out of such an important referendum is not a acceptable option.

As we’ve been told on several occasions, Christians are more likely to vote than other members of the public and that is why the Church of England and Church of Scotland’s Reimagining Europe blog is a such an important resource. Here we can find intelligent  and informed comment from leading writers on the future of Europe from a Christian perspective. This is just the sort of thing needed to help confused and undecided Christians (and others) make up their minds as to which way to cast their precious vote. The only downside is that the site quite deliberately leaves the reader to conclude which arguments are most persuasive, whereas plenty of people would like a bit of sagely advice to nudge them in a certain direction.

It’s not difficult to see which factors will ultimately influence most people’s decision. Trade, national sovereignty and of course immigration are impossible to ignore. Right now, with everything that has gone on over the summer and following Theresa May’s controversial speech at the Conservative Party Conference, immigration is gaining even more attention than it usually does. Out of the key issues at May’s General Election, immigration came fourth after the NHS, the economy and education. It is a thoroughly divisive subject surrounded by claims and counter-claims, misinformation and ignorance and yet it has hardly received a mention at Reimagining Europe so far. Immigration is hitting the headlines day after day and but thoughtful Christian comment on it is sadly lacking.

In my experience, Christians on the whole try to see the good in all people, so labelling immigrants as an unwelcome swarm doesn’t go down well. Jesus tells us that everyone is our neighbour and that we should treat each person with love and compassion as the story of the Good Samaritan sets out so clearly. But does that automatically mean we welcome anybody who arrives on our shores with open arms?  When we have net immigration running at 330,000 a year, whatever our views are on this matter, we can’t get away from the increasing pressures being placed on our public services as our population expands at a rapid rate.

There’s also the question of whether all migrants should be treated the in the same way. During the last year, 183,000 EU citizens arrived in the UK. The number from outside the EU was even bigger at 196,000. In comparison, the number of asylum applications was only 25,771. Are these volumes and proportions acceptable and if not what is a fair and just way to decide who is welcome and who is not?

Perhaps the best analysis of this situation from a Christian perspective I’ve found is in Guy Brandon’s Votewise, published this time last year. In it he turns to the Bible and in particular the Old Testament law to discuss how God expected the nation of Israel to deal with foreigners who had settled within their lands. He writes:

The most often mentioned category of immigrant in the Hebrew Bible is the gēr (plural gērîm), often translated as ‘[resident] alien’ or, more archaically, ‘sojourner’. This covers a range of immigrants, but they are all associated with other dependent groups: the hired worker, the poor, widows, orphans and the Levite. These are people without their own land and property who are disproportionately vulnerable; the Law and Prophets warn repeatedly against mistreating them…

The gēr was quite distinct from the noḵrî, who is presented as a ‘true’ foreigner – someone whose loyalties lay in his country of origin, who was a temporary visitor to Israel and who was economically independent… It seems clear that the noḵrî was viewed with a degree of suspicion and disapproval at best – and perhaps with outright hostility. The word is frequently used for foreign gods (e,g, Deuteronomy 31:16) which  threatened to ensnare the Israelites throughout their history…

Although it is unrealistic to expect one-to-one correspondence, it seems that the biblical gēr can most closely be identified with today’s asylum seeker or refugee. The Bible’s concern for the gēr is reflected in the number of times they are mentioned – almost always in the context of vulnerability and need. Many economic migrants may also fall into this category, since they have left their country of origin due to some degree of hardship or limited opportunity, and settled for the long term in the UK – often taking on low-paid jobs that native Britons are unwilling to do.

The noḵrî is associated with those whose visit is temporary and whose allegiance ultimately line elsewhere. The foreign student would generally fall into this category, along with some wealthier economic migrants whose relationship with the country could be viewed as short-term and even exploitative. To these we might plausibly add multinational companies which operate in the UK but are domiciled elsewhere or have arrangements in place to avoid paying taxes here. Additionally some British-born high net-worth individuals actually choose to be domiciled  elsewhere so that they can avoid paying taxes here; they have essentially taken on noḵrî status voluntarily. The obligation to pay their way for those who are able, and for the Israelites to provide work, support and community for those who are vulnerable and dependent on them, is a simple yet profound guiding principle.

It’s not difficult to see how this approach to the treatment of foreigners is as relevant today as it was a few thousand years ago. There is a well developed understanding of the need to shelter those fleeing persecution and violence. Ex-Lib Dem MP,Sarah Teather set out a biblical perspective on this two years ago and plenty of others have done so since. But when it comes to open doors immigration, we are finally waking up to the realisation that integration is not a happy and natural by-product of multiculturalism.  People would generally rather live and spend time with others like them. We have too many insular communities living in this country who are not fully integrated into our society. We have not sustained a strong narrative of our own cultural identity and made few demands of those entering from outside. When outsiders settle, but then demand that they have their own parallel legal and education systems and that their cultural practices and attitudes are to be accepted without question, it is impossible for society to remain cohesive. The government’s current drive to promote British values, which although vague around the edges are underpinned by the Christian teaching and heritage that have defined us as a country for so long. They are an acknowledgement that if our nation is to function effectively as hundreds of thousands continue to arrive each year, we need to start laying down some markers and expectations of all who reside here.

None of this provides a definitive answer as to whether we should leave the EU or not. Immigration is important, but it should not become the defining issue. Up until now we have coped with the numbers arriving and we should be able to for some time to come. We have more immigrants from outside than within and exiting the EU will make no difference in that area.

If we stay then we will have to accept that we will have to work harder to keep our identity with all of the benefits that it brings. If we go then our future is in our own hands; there will be no one else to dictate who we let in, but if we reduce the numbers entering who we might class as noḵrî, then conversely that should mean we are able to serve the gērîm better. It cannot be an excuse to shut out the desperate and needy too – if anything, the opposite should be true. A reduction in immigration numbers should never result in a reduction in compassion. That is certainly not a British nor a Christian value.

  • The Explorer

    “Immigrants are all God’s children.” The corollary is, “We are all children of God.” From that flows, “Everybody gets to Summerland when they die.”

    It’s nice warm and fuzzy humanism, but it’s not what the New Testament actually says. “But to all who did receive him, to those who have yielded him their allegiance, he gave the right to become children of God.” (‘John’ 1:13).

    There it is. We aren’t all children of God. We don’t all make it into Heaven. That clashes absolutely with religious universalism, and the two different views will lead to two different immigration policies.

    • cacheton

      ‘It’s nice warm and fuzzy humanism, but it’s not what the New Testament actually says.’

      It’s not what the NT appears to be saying in this instance, though it is what it appears to say in other instances.

      Jesus taught of unity and unconditional love. Which of those two different views correlates more closely with these? The first, obviously. But no need to worry, either way you (Christians) will get to claim that immigration policy is based on biblical teaching!!

      • The Explorer

        “You belong to your father the devil.” (John 8:44). “If anyone will not listen, shake the dust off your feet.” (Matthew10:14). “Depart from me ye accursed into the everlasting fire.” (Matthew 25:41) All teachings of Jesus about disunity that have to be taken into account.

        • cacheton

          Why? Why do teachings supposedly said by Jesus but with obvious angry and manipulative and unloving influence from the humans that remembered them and wrote them down decades later have to be taken into account?

          • The Explorer

            Lots of issues here. You’re saying the loving things Christ said are authentic, and the harsh bits were added later? How about the reverse: a mean bastard was turned into Mr Nice Guy?

            An Aramaic version of a gospel is thought to have been circulating pretty immediately after the Resurrection. It became Matthew’s Gospel when translated into Greek. And verbal versions of all the Gospels preceded the written ones. So let’s assume for the sake of argument that what’s recorded in the Gospels is accurate: that Christ talked about judgement and separation as well as about love and unity.

            Why not just focus on one group and not on the other? Well, that would be like saying Shakespeare was a comic dramatist. Or a tragic dramatist. Actually, he wrote both, and romances and histories and problem plays as well, not to mention sonnets, and in assessing his significance the whole oeuvre must be taken into account if we want a balanced picture to emerge.

          • cacheton

            If a mean bastard were turned into a nice guy, there would have been no reason to suppose that Jesus was god incarnate would there?

            Christ talked about judgment and separation yes, but what did he mean by it? Fortunately it is possible to interpret this as spiritual teaching, in which case it can be used to inform people of inner spiritual truths, rather than the literal interpretations which are used to emotionally blackmail people who think that these teachings refer to the physical world, and that ‘sinners’ will be ‘burnt in hell’!

          • The Explorer

            Do I believe in literal fire? No. Do I believe that some are eternally separated from God, yes. I’d like that to be annihilation rather than ongoing existence, but I fear that the case for annihilationism is, at best, ambiguous. Anyway, some (I don’t know exactly who or how many, don’t make it to Heaven.)
            Why should we suppose that God is love? The world as we find it does not suggest it. Zeus, Baal, Tlaloc etc (or pure chance) are the kind of gods you’d come up with if you look unflinchingly at the world as it actually is. On the other hand, there are beautiful things about the world that don’t square with this pessimism. A good world spoiled with the devil in temporary control of it (currently restricted, but later to be given free reign) makes better sense of the world as I find it than any other system I’ve come across. Only on that basis can I believe that God is Love.

          • cacheton

            ‘Do I believe that some are eternally separated from God, yes.’ Why are they separated from God? Why is it eternal?

            I read your second paragraph as a confession of why you believe that the bible is the word of god – because the picture it gives of the world corresponds to how you see the world. And you can only believe that god is love if the devil exists too. Unfortunately, and as I’m sure you are aware, this presents some major theological problems. In your view of the world, either god is not the universal creator, or he created the devil.

            Why should we suppose that god is love? What else would you want him to be? YES, YOU choose what god you worship. Why would you choose to worship a god that is not love? Because you don’t like the world? I really am mystified – how do you expect to change this world you don’t like by worshipping a god who is either not the universal creator or who created the devil?

          • The Explorer

            I think not believing in the devil creates far greater theological problems. God then becomes the source of evil. Or what seems to be evil isn’t really evil: just faulty perspective. That’s the solution of Pantheism. I reject it.

            Do I believe God created the devil? Not directly. The devil created the devil through rebellion. That’s the theme of ‘Isaiah’ 14 and ‘Ezekiel’ 28.

            I don’t expect to change the world. That won’t happen until the world is remade through the New Heaven and the New Earth.

          • cacheton

            ‘I reject it’.

            Why? It is the only one that makes sense, and the only one that provides for real change, as perspectives can be changed.

          • The Explorer

            We have irreconcilable views. Neither of us is going to persuade the other. Let’s just agree to disagree.

          • cacheton

            My aim is not to persuade anyone. I post here because I am interested in why people believe what they believe. Which is why I asked why you reject the pantheistic view. Of course you are free not to answer. But my day will be less interesting!!

          • The Explorer

            Why are they separated? Two ways of interpreting the data. 1, Because God didn’t choose them in the first place. 2. Because they reject God, and God respects their decision. I prefer the second explanation.

            Why eternal? Because eternity starts for us when the world is remade. The consequences are eternal for those not in Heaven either because they lose eternity by ceasing to exist or (more difficult) because they are externally excluded. As I say, it’s a subject on which I’m unclear. I’m inclined to think they survive; but deprived of the source of life (God) they dwindle until they cease to have meaningful existence. But I’m not dogmatic about anything other than the reality of the separation.

          • cacheton

            1. This is theologically indefensible, if god is unconditional love and the creator of all things. 2. I agree with this, but it is not eternal, as they can at any time transform their rejection. Actually I would even say that the different degrees of closeness to god correspond to the differing degrees of rejection. If you believe that god is not unconditional love, that is a degree of rejection.

          • alternative_perspective

            If you’re going to take that tac then you are going to have to throw out the majority of history… If you want to remain coherent and unprejudiced.

            It would serve you well to survey the periods between events being recorded and their happenings across history. I think you’ll find that even with much recent history your simply going to have to abandon it because there is often far more than mere decades between said events and their recordings.

          • cacheton

            No time like the present eh!! The present is all we have!

      • alternative_perspective

        Unity within the church but not with the world.

        Unconditional love does not tolerate abuse and unfaithfulness. No matter how loving a spouse is, a resolutely unfaithful partner destroys the marriage.

        • cacheton

          Unconditional love is unconditional. It tolerates and has compassion for anything. Spouses are not usually examples of unconditionally loving people – their humanness gets in the way, understandably.

          • alternative_perspective

            I think you deliberately have misunderstood me… Why?

            I’ll restate it. Irrespective of how unconditional one’s love may be, any relationship is predicated on its bidirectional nature. Without reciprocation there is no relationship.

            Jesus categorically taught the reestablishment of relationshiprelationship, not acquiescence to a canon of beliefs. It is only because God’s love is unconditional that this is possible. Conditional love would have withdrawn the embrace of love and hand of friendship. Taking an analogy of an old telephone line: God left the receiver off the hook and the line permanently open

  • Inspector General

    Damn good post today, Scott. As you say in so many words, there is much of a silence to the idea that Christians are not obliged to work towards removing national borders to the extent that anyone who comes to the UK is welcome.

    One can see a time when property owners who live in large premises with vacant rooms are ordered by the state to accommodate immigrants. It is bound to happen. Even if we wanted to convert this green and still pleasant in parts land to one massive housing estate, we couldn’t possibly put up homes quickly enough. But then, we are expected to welcome immigrants unconditionally with open arms and there is no end to that, it seems.

    • Coniston

      “property owners ….. are ordered by the state to accommodate immigrants”. Isn’t this already happening in Germany? I suggest Chequers is filled up first, then government offices; civil servants can operate from portacabins.

  • The Explorer

    Last year there were 183 000 from the EU and 196 000 from outside. Does our EU membership determine both sets of immigration? Does the EU tell us who we can let in world-wide, or do we have any say about who can immigrate, or is all non-EU immigration determined by the ECHR, international treaties etc?

    In other words, if we left the EU, that would have a bearing on the 183 000. But would it also have a bearing on the 196 000? The 183 000 are, if anything, more likely to sustain the historically-Christian elements of our culture than the 196 000 who are much more mixed. What if they continued to arrive, and the 183 000 didn’t? What if they expanded, to make up the shortfall of the 183 000? The process of religious change would accelerate. Secularists would rejoice, but there would be implications for secularism as well.

    Not very well put. Let me sum up. EU withdrawal will not solve the immigration issue unless it gives us control over all immigration from everywhere.

    • cacheton

      But in theory we already have control over immigration from outside the EU. In practice we see that the system is broken and that even if your asylum claim fails you can stay, which is why so many attempt to get here rather than claim in other EU countries, where it is impossible to live and work unless you have valid paperwork. Employers can give jobs to people from countries outside the EU so that those people then qualify for work permits, when those employers could employ someone who is already here.

      As you say, leaving the EU will not change the 196 000. I suppose it may change the situation in Calais though, so the French would have to process those migrants as their wish to get to the UK would no longer be a valid reason not to. Though if current EU regulations were properly followed those migrants would already have been registered when they entered the EU anyway!

      • The Explorer

        DO we have control over non-EU immigration? Take the case of Abu Qtada. He wasn’t from the EU. But we couldn’t get rid of him, although he arrived on a forged passport, because of his human rights. We did in the end, but didn’t it cost us something like £6 million in legal fees?

        • cacheton

          Oh yes. I forgot about the Human Rights thing. But I don’t think this affects the vast majority of those 196 000.

    • sarky

      Alot of those coming from outside the EU come as students, so the numbers quoted don’t give a true reflection.

      • The Explorer

        Good point. Provided they leave again at the end of it, for the sake of the countries funding them (unless Britain’s doing the funding to provide employment for academics) then only those who hate students as a life form would have a problem with that. And if the EU allows us to make our own decisions about how many foreign students to admit, then that’s a fantastic bit of autonomy.

  • Johnny Rottenborough

    the best analysis of this situation from a Christian perspective

    Please, half a century of Christian emotional incontinence has played a large part in landing us in this godawful mess, witness your last tear-stained contribution to the immigration debate. The last thing we need now is advice from that Old Testament comedy duo, noḵrî and gēr—a song, a dance, a population replacement.

    The Church of England’s Affirming Our Common Humanity quotes scripture by the bucketful to prove why, as the opening paragraph has it, ‘Christians should celebrate the diversity found in the human family…the foundation for our pursuit of human flourishing for all, and our relationship with our neighbours, not least those of other faith communities.’

    You can hear the bishops singing ‘I’d like to see the world for once / All standing hand in hand / And hear them echo through the hills / For peace through out the land’ as they wrote in praise of diversity, but when diversity is put into practice, it is disastrous for social cohesion, as Robert Putnam found, and, in time, it will be disastrous for European Christianity through the growth of Islam.

    The soft-hearted Christian approach to immigration is a proven failure. Whether the British can harden their hearts to the extent needed to save their country, time will tell.

    • alternative_perspective

      Excellent post. And thanks for the link!

      Agreed, liberal Christian musings have justified the gradual collapse of social order in the UK.

      I think the problem is, a very Hunan one, that we pick scriptures, evidences, and arguments, whatever, to suit our prejudices.

      The liberal Christians always jumps on board scriptures that support hugging a hoody, but rarely do they take on board those demanding the huggy conforms to religio-social expectations and gets a job etc.

      In my opinion the problems lies in them interpreting scripture rather than allowing scripture to interpret them.

      They want to be all compassionate and nice but God is Loving and Just. Split one from the other and we don’t have God but a pretext to use scripture as a prooftext. This is the Christians challenge and one I believe we’ve really failed to take seriously the last half century or so, especially in the CoE.

      • Johnny Rottenborough

        @ alternative_perspective—liberal Christians

        Lawrence Auster wrote: ‘much of organized Christianity as it actually exists today—Christianity infused with liberal One‑Worldism—is the avowed enemy of the West and its historic peoples. This One-World Christianity is a distortion of true Christianity, it is what Christianity has become under the influence of left-leftist ideology. A more sane and balanced Christianity is possible, which gives due regard to the subsidiary values of culture and nation.’ See the antepenultimate paragraph here.

        • The Explorer

          I’d say liberals in general are the curse. Liberal Christians are just a subset of this wider problem. On their own, liberal Christians are not influential enough in society to achieve the amount of damage that has been done.

      • cacheton

        ‘In my opinion the problems lies in them interpreting scripture rather than allowing scripture to interpret them.’

        Please, do explain how it is possible to read anything at all and not interpret it! Surely you mean ‘allowing scripture to instruct them’, not ‘interpret them’. But in order for it to instruct you have to interpret it first, no?

        • alternative_perspective

          I meant it various ways. But principally, Yes we interpret scripture and gradually one comes to embody that teaching. If one though filters or ignores the breadth of scripture one comes to embody an imbalanced perspective of it. Conversely by reading, reflecting and digesting it in its challenging fullness, one more fully embodies what is a living document, sharper than a two edged sword that divides bone and sinew. To dwel within you. This Word finds you out, identifies your puporse and sets you in a context.

          • cacheton

            ‘Yes we interpret scripture’

            So how do you deal with the contradictions – love your enemies, destroy your enemies? Do you interpret one to mean the opposite of what it says, so it can then mean the same as the one you would like to believe (if this is the case then it would be interesting to know how you actually do this)? Or you choose one and disregard the other?

          • alternative_perspective

            Please shown me the contradictions. But before you do so I will require that you understand the context of said passages first. If you are going to quote from Joshua’s conquests for instance then Jesus, you’re setting yourself up for an epic fail. I’m very, very happy to guide you (it would be a privilege) but ONLY if you are sincere. I’m not interested in deceitful people and dialoguing with them.

          • cacheton

            Hang on. You said earlier, ‘I think the problem is, a very Human one, that we pick scriptures, evidences, and arguments, whatever, to suit our prejudices.’ So whatever contradiction I present to you, you will show some way or another that it is not, in fact, a contradiction. To do this you will interpret so-called scripture, part of which is understanding so-called context. You will interpret it differently from me. We could then argue about who is ‘right’.

            Before we even get that far however, to be coherent you would have to give a valid reason why you believe this is scripture in the first place, and therefore possibly worthy of more attention and interpretation than any other book. You cannot use interpretation to show this, otherwise your argument is circular and therefore invalid.

            The base question is therefore, ‘what evidence, argument or prejudice of YOURS is requiring YOU to believe that the bible is the word of god?’ Not ‘The bible is the word of god, so what are you going to do with it?’, which starts with an unfounded assertion.

            So, a_p, what evidence, argument or prejudice of yours is requiring you to believe that the bible is the word of god??

          • alternative_perspective

            First, regarding contradictions. You are assuming there are biblical contradictions which are somehow inexplicable. I deny this. You provide a sideways allusion to ” destroy your enemies ” but don’t clarify the text you infer. If anything it sounds like you are inventing straw man arguments or picking scripture without a context, with a pretext for using it as a prooftext. I would say that is performing violence againt the texts. And not a justifiable intellectual approach.

            Then you are attacking ‘ context ‘. Seriously? How can you have a rational conversation about something if you deny the background story or the cultural expectations and language prevelant at the time.

            I just won’t play this kind of silly merry-go-round with you. If I use metaphorical or idiomayic language here to convey meaning will you deny you understand me simply because you won’t tolerate ‘context’.

            You are embarking on intellectual suicide by embracing such narrow scepticism. If you remain coherent you will begin to deny we have access to any history and truth or that what is reasoned by our brains is even rational, coherent and true.

            Should you be willing to explore a little further may I suggest you follow the links I provide you bellow.




          • cacheton

            ‘I deny this’ Yes, I know, and for the reasons I set out in the first paragraph of my last post which you seem not to have grasped. I’m not sure where your accusation of me attacking context comes from.

            You have not addressed the other paragraphs.

            Thank you for the links. I have seen William Lane Craig in debate with various people. He articulates his case very well up to a point, but it will probably not surprise you that I do not agree with him! There are several quotes I could give and comment on, but I’ll stick to this one for now otherwise it will get too long.

            ‘The offer of salvation that we receive in the Gospel is real only if the specific events upon which the offer is based are real. And that’s scandalous in a sense because, as I said, if those events are shown to be fictional, then the whole religion collapses.’ ( )

            To me this shows that he has rather missed the point of Jesus’s teaching altogether. If you interpret the bible as far as possible as a spiritual teaching, if you recognise the spiritual aspects of what it tells, it does not matter whether the events were real or not. The fact that Jesus was a real incarnated human being is testimony to the spiritual teachings of the bible, not the other way round. Having it the wrong way round is no doubt why the whole bible has to be considered to be a spiritual teaching by many (otherwise the grounds for their faith collapses, as WLC said), even if they have to go to great lengths of ‘interpretation’ to find some kind of consistency and meaning to it, even in the parts which are obviously the word of humans, not god, and contrary to Jesus’s teachings.

            Also I have seen WLC on a few occasions refuse to answer questions, because his intellect just does not go that far. The one that sticks most in my mind was one on divine revelation, when he quite simply said he was not going to address that. End of! He seems to me to be someone who is very emotionally attached, and therefore passionate which is good for PR, but who has not thought things through completely.

            I could not make the youtube link work, and will listen to the rest of the Labri talk when I have more time, though I am already familiar with Labri.

    • David

      This comment is excellent. I totally agree with you. The liberal bishops have got so many things totally wrong. Many thanks for your comment.

  • IanCad

    Good stuff again Gillan.
    I am astonished that there were only 25K asylum seekers – as you stated.
    This puts a new spin on the entire Middle East/ North African diaspora as it floods toward our comforting shores.
    I don’t think I would be out of line to suggest that the other 196K should be back in their native lands attempting to better the lot of their fellows.
    By encouraging the fittest to leave we are beggaring those who remain.
    Surely that is not in harmony with our faiths?

  • Inspector General

    BBC news on line…

    “Ibidapo was trafficked to the UK from Nigeria in 2007, to work as a servant for relatives in the North of England. They accused her of being a witch, stopped her going to school and physically assaulted her. She escaped with the help of a Nigerian woman living nearby.

    “I started living with my aunty at the age of 10, to help her to look after the baby. If my aunty went to work I’d be left with the baby, to do all the housework, wash clothes, cook the food.

    “Each time the children got sick my aunty would accuse me of being the one responsible for their illness, start calling me a witch, start beating me up, and there was a time that she took me down to church, to a pastor. They were calling me a witch, they were using a broom to beat me.”

    • Inspector General

      “Good day to you Chief Constable. Can you inform a fellow that that black family in your patch will be prosecuted for child cruelty?”

      “It’s not that clear cut, Inspector General. We have to take into account community reaction to heavy handed policing, as well as beyond lip service to multiculturalism that acknowledges that although certain behaviour differs from the white indigenous, thus racist, norm, it may in itself with its different standards which although may be alien to us, nevertheless can claim a certain validity in the greater scope of things”

      “That’s a big NO to prosecution then”

      “Tell you what, I have a coin here. Call”


      “Heads it is. Bugger, what about best of three?”

      • ceige

        And Mr Constable all those illegal children trafficked to work in our industries from other countries…

        Can Mr Inspector be allowed to intervene?

        Afraid not, my son, while nobody knows nobody cares, lets leave it at that. Besides it profits our GDP.

        (cue credits: UNICEF Report on child labour in the UK)

  • The Explorer

    I don’t know if this is significant, but in ‘Revelation’ the redeemed are made up of representatives from every tribe, tongue, nation etc. They are united in faith, but still distinct.

    It is the Beast, under the control of Satan, who demands a one-world political system with common coinage etc.

    • Merchantman

      I like your posts with bible quotes.

      • The Explorer

        Thank you.

        • Merchantman

          Don’t thank me. I worry profoundly that we are a rudderless ship with a multitude of captains who have little idea where they are steering us even if we still had a rudder!

        • So does Jack.

          • The Explorer

            Thank you.

  • David

    I am a longstanding Ukip member. My main objection to us being in the EU is our loss of sovereignty with all that that entails. To focus on just one undesirable ramification of the loss of our sovereignty, I would point to legal justice. Just laws must reflect both Biblical truth and local social, economic and cultural conditions. One cannot have just laws for the 29 diverse countries of the EU because conditions are so varied. More sensitive local fine tuning is needed if laws are to be see by their populations as just. Moreover our UK system of Common Law is so superior to the Napoleonic Code system.
    However, provided they are not taking the jobs of resident British people, especially unfairly by price undercutting, creating a race to the bottom, I do not object to citizens of the other EU countries living here, as the vast majority share our Judaeo-Christian heritage, if not faith.
    However I do object to the large scale immigration of people from cultures that are radically different to ours, as usually they don’t integrate and this introduces social tensions. I would go so far as to say that I believe that encouraging, or even permitting large scale immigration of those from non-Christian heritage based cultures is immoral, as it ramps up social tensions, which is not in the common good. Islam in particular is totally antithetical to all western systems of thought, pre or post the Enlightenment. In fact global experience points to Islam being incompatible with everything that isn’t Islamic.
    In Somerset, where I worked for five years, they had an apt saying, “good fences make good neighbours”. That homespun truth is still very true.

  • CliveM

    I was listening to R4 a couple of weeks back, interviewing an expert on immigration. Jhelum made the point that the numbers coming to Germany (I think it was) represented ‘only’ two immigrants for every town and city in the country.

    The implication being that in reality it was an easily absorbed number.

    Which of course is disingenuous (at best) as we all know that isn’t what happens. They tend to congregate in communities. Which is understandable. What is not understandable (actually being the BBC it is) is how the interviewer didn’t bother to challenge on this and just let the point stand.

    • The Explorer

      And as song about the lonely goatherd from ‘The Sound of Music has it, “Soon a duet will become a trio.” (If not an octet.)

      • CliveM

        I think the truth of how easily integrated all this is, is dawning on Germany at the moment.

      • Dreadnaught

        Goatherd? – I have been singing lonely Goat Turd all these years? – Doh!

        • The Explorer

          The puppet in the film is a clue.

          • Dreadnaught

            Only if you’ve seen the film. BTW did you notice in the banner pic, the woman in blue jacket flicking the V sign? – Christians aren’t what they used to be.

          • The Explorer

            Nice one. Actually, I think she’s just holding up a placard. Pity; your alternative is much more interesting.

  • The issue that will cause Jack to vote in favour of leaving Europe is the increasing imposition of secular humanism on this country in direct contradiction to our Christian heritage. We need to free ourselves not only from the EU but also from the Council of Europe and the European Court.

    • Inspector General

      Agreed Jack. Satan’s edifices…

  • Tutanekai

    Whether the UK stays in the EU or not, immigration will not cease. Nor will it slow down noticeably. We need immigrants to make up for all the babies we’re not having. Someone has to pay for the pensions and health care of all those old people who cling on to life for 20, 30 or even 40 years after they retire.

    In the 40s and 50s people retired at 65, lived for a few more years and then promptly and economically dropped dead. Now they drag on into their 80s and 90s, kept alive by increasingly expensive long-term medical care, and their children struggle to pay the bills.

    If we want to keep the elderly in the (relative) luxury they’ve become used to, we need more taxpayers. As birth rates are steadily declining, the only way to get those taxpayers is to import them.

    If you want to live until you’re 100 and not have to pay for the drugs and medical procedures that get you there, you should be wholeheartedly supporting an open door immigration policy. If you keep the immigrants out, who’s going to pay to keep you alive?

    • carl jacobs

      people who cling on to life for 20, 30 or even 40 years after they retire.

      Interesting verb choice.

      As birth rates are steadily declining…

      Hrmmm. I’m not sure, but there might be another solution to this problem.

      who’s going to pay to keep you alive?

      Well, there might be another answer to that question as well. See the verb choice in that first quotation.

      • The Explorer

        Guess who you’re communicating with. If in doubt, see previous thread.

        • carl jacobs

          Think so? Maybe. I’m not sure.

      • Contraception, abortion and euthanasia – the unholy trinity of the culture of death.

        • carl jacobs

          It’s all about time and money, Jack. More time for me. More money for me.

          • It’s curious the more time people have the less time they have; and the more money they have the more money they desire.

      • Tutanekai

        Euthanasia isn’t an adequate solution to the demographic problem posed by an aging population unless it’s made compulsory from a certain age. If you knock off everyone over the age of, let’s say, 80 then of course the economic pressure placed on society by the cost of their continuing care is eased. But nobody’s advocating that. In a democratic society based on the rights of the individual, involuntary euthanasia will never be acceptable.

        Voluntary euthanasia may ease specific economic burdens placed on individual families, but it won’t make a significant difference to society as a whole. We have an aging population and we have to support it. The only solution is an influx of economically active younger people who can contribute to the system and generate the funding needed to look after the elderly.

        There are two solutions. More babies. Or more immigrants. There are no more new babies, or at least not nearly enough of them. Again, in a democratic society based on the rights of the individual, you can’t force women to have babies. So that leaves one solution: immigration.

    • Royinsouthwest

      What happens when the immigrants get old?

      • The Explorer

        They’ll have lots of children.

      • Tutanekai

        Depending on the part of the world they’ve arrived from, immigrants tend to have more children than the native British. Family sizes tail off after a couple of generations however. So more immigration will be needed to make up the shortfall.

        In other words, get used to it. More are coming, and more will follow them.

        • *More are coming, and more will follow them.*

          But only until they recreate the dysfunctional conditions of the shit-holes they came from through sheer numbers and until they eat-up the Free Stuff that brought them over.

    • “We need immigrants to make up for all the babies we’re not having.”

      So are you helping this decline in population by marriage to a person of the opposite sex and through natural procreation?

      • Tutanekai

        Marriage has little or nothing to do with fertility. Half the babies born are born to unmarried parents.

        Whether married or single, women are choosing to have fewer babies. That’s the issue.

        • Jack never asked about marriage. He asked if you were planning to help by conceiving a child with a woman. Well, are you?

          • Tutanekai

            Rather an intrusive question, don’t you think?

            My reproductive plans are of no concern to anyone but me and my close circle. They’re certainly not something I choose to discuss on a public blog.

            I’m rather surprised you’ve even asked the question. Why could you possibly want to know?

          • Intrusive? Not at all. You identified a problem that is being caused by the West’s declining population. Jack is curious if you have children or are planning to. It’s a simple question and given the anonymous nature of your avatar one would have thought it a fairly straightforward one to answer.

          • Tutanekai

            You’re right about one thing. It would be very straightforward to answer your question if I desired to do so.

            I do not.

          • Okay, Linus. Jack understands.

          • Grouchy Jack

            Avoir un pet de travers ….

    • Dreadnaught

      We need immigrants to make up for all the babies we’re not having
      And when all the immigrants and extended families are brought over – I suppose they are not going to add to the numbers of aged and vulnerable within a generation or two?

      • Tutanekai

        The solution for our demographic problem now is immigration. Solutions for future demographic problems will be decided in the future.

        Will immigration bring problems with it? Undoubtedly. Will solutions for those problems be found as and when they happen? Of course they will.

        Future Britain may not be the sparkling white Anglo-Saxon paradise you would like it to be. But how many Victorians looking at Britain today, or even in the 50s, would approve of the way society had developed?

        We don’t get to decide how the future will look. All we can do is make the best decisions for the time we live in.

        • There is no demographic problem. Britain is not dying out; it existed and flourished with a fraction of the current population. If the economy can’t be improved by employing millions of idle native-born, how would you improve it with a mass of newcomers? This is the 21st cenruey, not the 19th. Question the premise.

          • Tutanekai

            The demographic problem isn’t one of extinction. The issue is a very specific one involving an aging population and a falling birth rate.

            If we ban all immigration then our social model is in trouble. There won’t be enough taxpayers to support the elderly population. Pensions will be decreased. The NHS will be defunded. And the vast bloc of elderly voters will ensure that any government that allows this to happen won’t remain in power for very long.

            Parties like Ukip are a flash in the pan. Once the elderly realize that banning immigration means putting their pensions at risk, you’ll soon see them abandoning their anti-immigrant stance.

          • The Explorer

            If the NHS is defunded there won’t be a vast bloc of elderly voters. They’ll die off (if as you argue, the NHS is what sustains them) and the demographic imbalance will rectify itself.

          • Tutanekai

            Life expectancy probably will decline along with NHS funding.

    • The Explorer

      A decline in fertility has undoubtedly been a factor in the scarcity of under-16’s relative to over-65’s. (Plus, as you say, the efficacy of modern medicine.) But 7 million abortions suggest that fertility is not yet dead. Without the 7 million abortions we would not have needed the 7 million immigrants. (And that’s without taking contraception into account: what someone has termed the West’s suicide pill.)
      If we can’t reproduce, there isn’t a home-grown solution. If we won’t reproduce, there is.

      • Tutanekai

        By all means try to make abortion illegal. I don’t think you’ll get very far.

        A woman’s right to choose is an unassailable freedom in a modern democracy. If it falls, our entire social model falls with it, and we won’t then be worrying about immigration and preserving things like old-age pensions and the NHS. We’ll be in the middle of something like the Spanish Civil War and our problems will be of a different order.

        • Really? You see abortion as the king-pin of modernity? But if limits are placed on it, as well as on other liberal ventures, this will be done under the existing system with the consent of the majority, so apart from a gew firebrands in women’s studies departments and welfare queens whi’ll have to kearn to cross their legs, gew will be put out. “The woman’s right to choose” is just a mendacious bumper-sticker slogan, don’t forget.

          • Tutanekai

            Abortion itself isn’t the issue so much as the freedom of the individual to choose it. Limit that freedom and you start to undermine the basis of our social model.

            Look at what happened in Spain when the government there tried to place limits on abortion in 2013. A massive liberal backlash took place causing significant civil unrest, which forced the government (notwithstanding its comfortable legislative majority) to abandon its plans.

            Not much evidence of the consent of the majority evident there. In societies based on the freedom of the individual, it’s hard to find a majority willing to curtail those freedoms. We no longer live in the 1930s.

          • Our freedoms to choose are very limited. There is no objective benchmark to determine that abortion is a more valued freedom than, let’s say, freedom to refuse to pay taxes. The difference is not objective; it is cultural and perceptual, therefore malleable and impermanent. All that needs to happen in the case of abortion is a minor ideological or ethical flip in key sectors of society, much smaller than, for example, the sudden acceptance of same sex marriage and overnight, it will become an anathema facing a slew of restrictions without affecting anything else.

          • Tutanekai

            I disagree. We’re talking about a fundamental right here. Personal sovereignty, or the right to control your own body, is a very basic freedom indeed. Women lacked it for many centuries. Now they have it and I can’t see them giving it up without a fight.

            But perhaps I’m wrong and in the future all men will be required to report to sperm donation facilities once a month where their seed will be sucked out of them and transplanted into immobilized, comatose women, otherwise known as axolotl tanks. A science fiction dystopia that many might see as the bottom of the slippery slope we all start to slide down if basic personal freedoms are abrogated in the name of reproductive “necessity”.

          • Your disagreement is philosophical and its premised on contemporary philosophies which are also philosophical and easily brushed aside by changing economic and political conditions. Example: infanticide, which was practiced by all humans through 99% of our history. The moral premise behind it was no less convincing than that of abortion.

            And axlotl tanks notwithstanding, Herbert’s universe was hardly dystopian; humanity had spread over galaxies, populating millions of planets, too many for the Padishah Emperor to count 🙂

          • Tutanekai

            You don’t think axolotl tanks are dystopian? And a feudal trade culture where all technology is banned, women are bought and sold as concubines, and transport relies on monopolist mutant monsters addicted to a drug?

            Sounds pretty dystopian to me.

          • Of course; axlotl tanks were an abomination according to the Empirium and the Orange Catholic Bible. But so necessary were the watchamacallit fellows, that not even the Dune Emperor was able to prevent them. The power of Cultural Materialism.

            Dystopia is another fluffy concept. The bottom line is the well-being of humanity. Herbert was smart enough to realize that our social order and ethics are governed not by ideas, but by the conditions and circumstances we face.

          • Tutanekai

            The degree of economic and political change needed to make individual freedom an outmoded philosophy would be so great that what you’re really talking about is some kind of conservative revolution.

            The problem with that is clear to see when you look at countries where it has actually happened. Spain for example.

            Yes, there was a conservative revolution in Spain that turned the clock back to 19th century morality. For a couple of generations. And then the dictator who imposed the morality died, the Movida started, and now Spain is as liberal as any other European country, and more liberal than most.

            You can’t row against the tide of the times you live in. At least, not successfully, and not for very long. The times we live in are all about personal freedom. If you see that changing any time soon, if I were you, I’d take my crystal ball in for a much-needed service.

          • Must be off for the night now; bbl.

          • You seem to operate under a slew of untested axioms, Tut. The assumption that abortion rights are at the heart of individual freedom. That we can reduce issues to an ideological conflict between conservatism and liberalism. That liberalism is and forever will be the better path. Paradoxically, your static outlook is more desperately conservative than modern conservatism.

          • The Explorer

            But Linus always did that. Changing the name doesn’t change the method of argument.

          • Not sure this is Linus. Fellow is bright enough to change his style…but only up to a point. And Linus lacked the self-conyrol and calm of Tut. But, I could be and have been wrong before. I’m too lazy to dig out from my hard drives and reinstall a n old text analysis app my wife used to check her students’ work for plagiarism. It wasn’t a great app anyway…would give you only vague probabilities… and now tech services at her uni run the checks through an array of much better apps with algorithms that look for complex patterns in word use, gramnar and even emotional markers. Scary shit, that.

          • The Explorer

            Fair enough. Jack’s convinced, and so am I. Carl isn’t, and it needs a Jack/Carl/Avi consensus for a rock-solid case. Just bear the possibility in mind, keep communicating, and see if you get the feeling that you’ve been here before.
            Of course, since he hasn’t been banned he has a perfect right to post under whatever avatar he chooses. It’s just that knowing who he is saves a lot of time.

          • Carl, Jack…and I? I’m the last to clue in to new identities! Or to be worried about identity changes. Ultimately we deal with ideas here and if a fellow wants to express himself through this persona or that, well that’s just a device, a tool. If Linus and Tut are the dame person, Tut is certainly the more pleasant one…although I do miss the florid insults and the hyperbolae at times!

          • CliveM

            If this is Linus he certainly seems to have learnt not to over react the way he use to.

          • Tutanekai

            I didn’t use the word “forever”.

            Western democracies are currently run along liberal lines. There are no apparent signs of that changing any time soon.

            There’s nothing conservative about such a position. It’s a simple acknowledgment of the current state of play.

            If you believe we’re on the brink of a conservative revolution, where’s your evidence? Of course if it’s just a case of you wanting there to be a conservative revolution, then of course no evidence is necessary. Wishful thinking doesn’t need to be justified.

          • I wasn’t quoting you. I was challenging your notion that we are running along “liberal lines.” “Sexually libertine” would be more applicable. Globalism, pc culture, speech codes, censorship, confiscatory taxation, ideological dominance by elites in media and academia…these are closer to fascism than classical liberalism. Historically, sexual liberalism has, in most cases, contributed or worked hand-in-hand with the cruelest, most authoritarian civilizations and regimes. The brief coupling of libertinism and liberalism is a rare fluke.

            As I keep suggesting, fact-check your assumptions and question popular memes and slogans.

          • Tutanekai

            Ah, of course. Sex.

            Politics, economics, even God pale into insignificance, don’t they?

          • Perhaps not, but it is the most powerful mechanism which ensures the continuation of those organisms subjected to its pleasures and dangers, sublime and dalubrious heights and horrifying low-points.

          • Tutanekai

            Sex doesn’t ensure the continuation of any organism, although it may enable it.

        • The Explorer

          Where did I say anything about making abortion illegal? I made the statistical observation that without the abortions the immigration would have been unnecessary.

          It would be an irony if the exercise of a woman’s right to choose ushered in a replacement culture that deprived woman of her right to choose.

          • Tutanekai

            I see no sign of the kind of social change that would be needed to deprive women of the right to control their own reproductive choices. Christianity as a minority faith shows no sign of provoking such a landslide.

            There’s Islam, of course. But Islamic domination of the West seems to exist mainly in the fevered imaginations of a few hardline Christians, who love to trot it out as the ultimate bogeyman, or even a sort of bargaining chip. “Obey our God or you’ll get a worse one.” Well, first show me some proof for either!

            It’s easy to prophesy doom, gloom and disaster. Harold Camping and the eBible Fellowship know all about that.

          • The Explorer

            As you well know, I am not talking about the present, but the possible long-term future. The so-called tipping point is still a good way off.

          • Tutanekai

            The “possible long-term future”, eh?

            Good luck predicting that. There are so many possible long-term futures. Who knows what will happen?

          • The Explorer

            You haven’t lost any of your old skill in misrepresenting your opponent’s argument.

          • CliveM

            It’s almost as if he’s not trying anymore.

          • Anna

            “But Islamic domination of the West seems to exist mainly in the fevered imaginations of a few hardline Christians…”

            Well, consider the facts…

            It is very much in the imaginations of Muslim leaders, too. Gaddafi said,”We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe—without swords, without guns, without conquest—will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.” This number is steadily rising thanks to their high birth rates and immigration rates. The Muslim immigrants and refugees of today will
            soon see themselves as ‘civilisers’ of the decadent west. No country with a significant Muslim minority has remained at peace for too long. Consider India… Consider Lebanon…

            Europe’s economic dependence on the Arab Gulf states goes beyond the need for oil. They own bits of the best real estate and other commercial interests in the west. During the last financial crisis, western leaders and bank turned to them for bailouts. Do you think they expect nothing in return? As Putin said in his UN speech, it is hard to know who is manipulating whom.

            Their so-called ‘moderates’ boast in various talk shows that Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe. Their extremists have grown in number and boldness. Countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia now have the arms and military capability to cause widespread destruction.

            The shocking complacency of western leaders who put the interests of their arms industry above the safety of their population is incomprehensible. The media in the West were slow to recognise this threat, but anyone who has studied the history of Islam can see that conditions in Europe a ripe for a takeover.

            Let me show you what the future will be, if Islam gains more ground…

            When Islam takes over, Christians, atheists and various self-declared minorities such as LGBT community will be declared ‘protected communities’ for a generation while the
            Muslims consolidate their hold over your institutions. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion will be curtailed only in stages. The western media – already so nervous about criticising Islam – will quickly toe the party line. Many western leaders will openly ‘embrace’ Islam. There will be no advantage in being anything else.

            Fifty years later, European school children will learn how Islam rescued their forebears from moral decadence and spiritual corruption. Atheists will suddenly find ‘God’ (Allah) –
            preferable to martyrdom. The current scientific advances of the West will be hailed in history books as Islamic learning, before intellectual decline properly sets in. Then the genocide will begin…

          • Tutanekai

            This is exactly what I meant by “fevered imagination”.

          • Anna

            My conclusions were drawn from historical trends, Islamic religious beliefs and the stated objectives of many present day Muslim leaders.

            What were yours based on? Have you studied Islamic history at all?

          • The Explorer

            In which case, I suggest you need to reconsider how you define things.

          • Tutanekai

            Right back at you.

            If every time the slightest, tiniest concession to Muslim sensibilities is mentioned, you start squawking about an Islamic theocracy and the imminent slaughter of all Infidels, all you do is convince others that you’re a paranoid Islamophobe.

            Once they think of you like that, you’ll dismissed as an extremist and nothing else you say will be taken seriously.

            This appeals to a hardline Christian mentality because it allows he who is dismissed to position himself as a misunderstood and persecuted martyr. It renders biblical prophecies about being hated for professing Christ’s message self-fulfilling.

            You have to hand it to the men who wrote the Bible: they were master manipulators who knew exactly how to exploit human weakness and self-regard to create a self-sustaining fortress mentality.

          • The Explorer

            “Squawking” eh? Was that a deliberate reference to Chicken Little?

            Anna didn’t mention theocracy, and I certainly didn’t. (Although you’re right, of course; it is the basis for how an Islamic society is governed.) As to the imminent slaughter of infidels, Anna did say “Then the genocide begin”, but only as the last stage of a long process. Nobody but you is suggesting imminence. If “imminence” means for you ‘a long way away in the future’ then I suggest, as I said before, that you need to reconsider your definitions.

            On this issue of the slaughter of infidels, Islamic eschatology is interesting. When the Mahdi arrives, so will the Muslim Jesus. The Muslim Jesus will destroy the Dajjal, and slaughter the Dajjal’s Jewish followers. The Muslim Jesus will abolish the jizya because there will be no need for it: Islam will be the only option. Those who refuse to convert will be killed, preferably by beheading.

            This may be fantasy, but it isn’t a fantasy of my invention. Try examining the beliefs of IS, and the significance for them of the Caliphate.

          • Tutanekai

            I know little of Muslim theology, but I do know that whatever they believe, the conquest of Europe by the forces of an Islamic jihad is unlikely given the minority status of the religion here and the firepower that can be ranged against it.

            IS controls relatively little territory, and like all totalitarian regimes must devote considerable energy to maintaining its power in the lands it already holds. It can only expand into new territory when a sizeable proportion of the people who live there already adhere to its fundamentalist ideals.

            Will it conquer more territory in the Middle East? Possibly, however its expansion so far has been limited to states where anarchy already reigned as a result of war. It has yet to impose itself on a stable Muslim nation. I won’t start to worry until that happens, which I think unlikely given the seriousness with which the West is now taking the matter.

            If I lived in Israel, I might be worried, although the Israelis can take care of themselves and I would certainly back them as the victorious party in any armed conflict. The principal danger for us from
            IS is not invasion and conquest, but of terrorist acts.

            Does the influx of refugees include terrorists plannîng to attack us? Quite probably. But to prevent every refugee from entering the country on the pretext that some of them might be terrorists would be a poor justification for refusing to help those who really need it. I mean, would you fail to stop at the scene of an accident and give first aid to the victims on the pretext that they might just be pretending to be hurt in order to rob you?

            Maybe you would, I don’t know. But if so, what does the parable of the Good Samaritan mean to you? Personally I don’t see the need for religious justificatlon in order to extend a helping hand to those in need. Altruism can be justified from a purely utilitarian point of view. But if your religion requires you to help those who are less fortunate than you, and you refuse to do so by rationalising away their need and pretending they don’t need help, how true are you being to beliefs you claim as your own?

          • The Explorer

            Your penultimate paragraph raises a difficult issue. When I holidayed in France four or five years back, the advice at the time was not to stop for a broken-down car. It was probably a ploy by Romanian immigrants. There had been several cases. When I was holidaying in South Africa I was stopped at a police roadblock. Seeing my British licence, the policeman advised me not to stop for any car in trouble at the side of the road. Just keep driving. On that basis, the Good Samaritan parable could be re-written. The victim was just pretending. When the Samaritan stopped to help he was jumped by three other members of the gang who robbed him and left him for dead. We are, after all, told to be as wise as serpents as well as harmless as doves.

            I entirely agree that current external Islamic military conquest of Europe is implausible. With regard to civil war, the tipping point is still a long way away. But that is not to say it won’t be reached one day. IS devotees may not be able to carry out their beliefs in regard to Europe, but the fact that they hold them is indicative of what they would like to do, and would do if they could.

          • Anna

            The scenario that I described does not require much imagination on my part – it follows a definite historical pattern.

            Historically, most Muslim nations have been ‘theocracies’ to varying degrees. Even in countries like Turkey or Iran, efforts at westernisation have been short-lived. Sooner or later, people begin to view the resulting moral laxity as the reason for all their national woes, and reverting to a more hard-core religion as the obvious solution. You can see this happening in Brunei; and the Chief Mufti of Saudi Arabia recently said that no churches should be allowed within the Arabian Peninsula. Then leaders who promote Islamic fundamentalism come to the forefront and minorities are eventually targeted.

            Now you might prefer to believe that Islam could never take root in the west, but there are enough secular observers who take a different view. I might be wrong, but your accusations of paranoia and Islamophobia seem to originate from a lack of experience of Islamic societies and an ignorance of their history.

          • Tutanekai

            There’s an enormous difference between what might happen in a Muslim country and what can happen in the West.

            Islamic fundamentalism can assert itself in a society founded on the principles of Islam because the population is already primed to receive it. It cannot assert itself where it is unknown. Or rather, conquest is the only means by which Islam can be imposed on a non-Islamic nation.

            So where are all these non-Islamic countries that have been invaded and subjugated by IS?

            History shows us that most Christian countries dominated by the Islamic Ottoman Empire remained Christian in faith and/or tradition. Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary were not Islamised even after several centuries of Islamic control.

            They were however occupied and oppressed. So when IS tanks start to roll down the streets of Athens, or Cyprus, or Malta, then I’ll admit there may be something to start worrying about. Until that happens however, fevered imaginings about Muslim conquest remain the province of those with an axe to grind.

            You clearly want to whip up anti-Muslim feeling by painting an horrific and totally imaginary picture of religious oppression. It would be laughable if the animus that motivates it weren’t so very palpable.

          • Anna

            Just read your reply. I will just address some of the points you raise.

            Your arguments might be distilled down to these: 1. The West has superior military strength and is therefore unassailable, and 2. The people wont permit Sharia law, not being ‘primed’ to it. I suggest that: 1. The West’s firepower would be effective if others fought wars by your rules, but experiences in Afghanistan or ‘tiny’ Vietnam have shown that you are not invincible, especially when your enemy chooses different tactics. 2. What about the existing Sharia ‘no go’ zones in Europe? The former Archbishop of Canterbury was certainly open to idea of Sharia law for Muslims.

            “There’s an enormous difference between what might happen in a Muslim country and what can happen in the West.”

            You wish. None of those countries were Muslim to start with, nor did they ‘embrace’ Islam willingly. Islam has, in it’s past, successfully invaded apparently superior powers. The fact you are not ‘primed’ to receive Sharia law is no protection. Nor is lack of knowledge or experience a terrific advantage – it leaves you vulnerable and prone to errors. Indeed, the decisions taken by western leaders to invade the Muslim nations revealed their shortsightedness in evaluating the long-term outcomes.

            “History shows us that most Christian countries dominated by the Islamic Ottoman Empire remained Christian in faith and/or tradition.”

            It is interesting that you choose the Ottoman Empire as your model for Islamic toleration. Ever heard of the fall of Constantinople? What about the Armenian genocide?

            Regarding Hungary, from Wikipedia:

            “As a consequence of the 150 years of constant warfare between the Christian states and Ottomans, population growth was stunted… The ethnic composition… was fundamentally changed through deportations and massacres…number of ethnic Hungarians… substantially diminished… The decline of the Hungarians was due to the constant wars, Ottoman raids, famines, and plagues during the 150 years of Ottoman rule.”
            Sounds rather mild, doesn’t it?

            I would say, that your Ottoman example actually proves that even Muslim regimes that have had periods of apparent religious tolerance remained susceptible to rapid radicalisation. Even now Kemal Ataturk’s attempts at westernisation of Turkey are now being reversed.

            The problem here is that you have a short-term outlook on these matters, whereas some countries – for example, China or the Muslim nations – tend to work with long-term goals.

          • Tutanekai

            Waging a war in a far off forwign country is nothing like defending home territory. Your paranoid vision of Islam sweeping over Europe takes no account of the entrenched Western culture that, accordin to you, will just roll over and accept Muslim domination.

            I think you probably understand as well as anyone that it just won’t happen. But the opportunity to sow anti-Islamic feeling and whip up popular sentiment against all migrants is just too good to pass up, isn’t it?

            By their fruits shall ye know them is a useful piece of folk wisdom borrowed by Christianity to make an important point. When hearts are governed by hatred and fear then all sorts of extremist demagoguery will flourish. Witness the rise of the extreme right across Europe. Witness the mentality of those who try to persuade us that all Muslims are bloodthirsty murderers just itching to slaughter us.

            The Nazis said something similar about the Jews. The difference between them and you is that it’s highly unlikely you’ll ever come to power.

          • Anna

            I have no hatred for the Muslims, but yes, I do fear what might happen as a result of the growth of Islamic extremism. I also believe that past history should not be quickly forgotten or ignored.

            That said, I have no wish to take this discussion to a personal level and so would prefer to stop.

        • Busy Mum

          But how democratic is it to make others pay for her choice?

          • Tutanekai

            The father may disagree with the mother’s decision to terminate, but in cases of disagreement someone has to carry the day, and as pregnancy takes place inside a woman’s body, it’s the woman who has the final say.

            As for the foetus, it isn’t a legally recognised person and therefore has no democratic rights. I realize you might not like this idea, but it is the legal reality as things stand.

          • Busy Mum

            I was referring to taxpayers funding her abortion through the NHS.

          • Tutanekai

            NHS funding is decided by the government, which is democratically elected. In a democracy, the minority has to put up with decisions of the majority. This is democracy in action.

            Or do you think that the wishes of the minority should prevail over those of the majority?

          • Busy Mum

            1. The government is not democratic; with the low turnout at elections, it cannot claim to represent the majority.
            2.I certainly do not think the wishes of the minority should prevail and I am sick and fed up with that happening on a daily basis in every area of life.

          • Tutanekai

            The government IS democratic because those who didn’t vote had the opportunity to do so and chose not to. That’s a free expression of apathy, or perhaps in some cases, a refusal to vote for any of the parties on offer.

            What’s the alternative? Compulsory voting? The Western democracies that compel their citizens to vote, for example Australia, still have more or less liberal governments.

            Whether everyone, or just a subset of voters vote, election results are broadly similar. There’s no “silent conservative majority” out there that’s being disenfranchised against its will.

          • Busy Mum

            And how do you know for certain that the government is doing the will of the majority at all times? You seem so sure that the government IS democratic – please give me the evidence.

    • We need immigrants to make up for all the babies.

      Not necessarily. This is an old-school mantra that made sense when we needed farm and factory workers. We need a higher GDP and ongoing technological solutions.We also need to select our ummigrants for suitability; economic and cultural.

      • carl jacobs

        You need a fertility rate of 2.05 just to maintain a stable population. That means you need more women in the child-bearing quartile having 3 kids instead of just 2. And everyone who opts out puts that much more pressure on the “breeders.” You can only compensate an unwillingness to procreate with increased productivity for so long. Productivity after all depends on people. You need people to invent and create and produce. All those people who aren’t conceived have an opportunity cost associated with their missing lives. They don’t get PhDs and discover new productive techniques. You just can’t assume the people who are born will be equal to the task.

        • You are making a number of assumptions on expiring models which couple population growth and a large and cheap semi-skilled labour force with economic growth. Productivity does not depend on people anymore; technology and management can and will compensate. This was true even after the great plagues, when Europe lost two thirds of its people in some locations and compensated with chamges in land management, improved agrarian methods and water power-based machinery.

          Also, no one wants to tackle the onvious; that under the current domestic conditions, the mass of immigrants consiredered may not only be of little use even after several generations, but might precipitate social and economic collapse.

          The bottom line is that we have a sufficient number of people to make up that “critical mass” for development and can sustain a long period of syeady population decline…long in terms of centuries… once we crank-up the technology, much of which is already here and is waiting to be applied.

          • carl jacobs

            Technology is not independent of population growth. You can’t assume that the remnant will be capable of producing that technology. You also can’t assume that the remnant will be capable of producing technology that is competitive. You are producing an increasingly smaller sub-population of citizens who are capable of understanding technology, who have the moral discipline to sit, focus, and concentrate. Managers can’t manage what doesn’t exist.

          • But what you are doing is drawing straight trajectories while assuming static trends and conditions. And we are not talking about drastic depopulation, but a gradual decline which can reverse under different economic and cultural conditions. The idea that we need to over-populate just to keep going may be true in the current picture, but we change, adapt and progress, often quite rapidly…remember?

          • carl jacobs

            which can reverse under different economic and cultural conditions.

            Yes, you are absolutely 100% correct. But those different economic conditions are likely to involve a considerable amount of pain brought about by the very forces I am mentioning. And a change in cultural conditions would require the equivalent of the Great Awakening. It would mean repudiating the privatization of sex, repudiating the disconnect between sex and children, repudiating the disconnect between marriage and sex, repudiating the impermanence of marriage. The entire sexual revolution would have to be cast aside. It would require the death of Functional Secularism as the dominant world view of society. That’s going to happen but it isn’t at all clear what will replace it. But I do agree it will be aggressively pro-natal.

          • Of course. Read the doom and gloom predictions of philosophers of Classical Civilizations who faced the decline of the massive slave populations which ran everything at the cost of food and shelter. It won’t be a smooth transition, but we have the reserves and the communications infrastructure to manage the transitions.

            But I think you have things backward. If you look at the chronology, the anti-natal ideologies did not cause population decline; the changing means of production, lonher life expectancy, cost of education and the type of state welfare made children too expensive. The idelogy, such as it is, followed on the heels of these rapid and disruptive material changes.

          • carl jacobs

            I’m sorry, Avi. This is totally off the subject, but I have to share this. I did something really stupid tonight, and it made me sort of grouchy. I tried to watch a bunch of journalists talk about the Vietnam war. I know I shouldn’t do this, but I can’t help myself. It never fails. Anytime I hear a journalist talk about the VN war, I end up reaching for my machine gun. Anyways, I just did a random Google search about the media and the military and discovered this headline:

            New Pentagon manual declares journalists can be enemy combatants

            I can’t stop chuckling. My mood is considerably better now.

          • Hahaha! Machine gun meets Pentagon manual.

          • Grouchy Jack

            Grouchy Carl …. it’s there in us all.

          • Hi avi

            Japan has an ageing “crisis”, but hasn’t allowed mass immigration from , say, Malaysia. Yet it is still economically powerful… robotics and such stuff will doubtless have helped. A bit like the industrial revolution when technology allowed for machinery to replace horses etc to dramatically increase general productively and wealth…

        • dannybhoy

          Have you read, “How civilisations die” by David Goldman?
          According to him the US is the only advanced nation in the free world that is maintaining population equilibrium.

          • CliveM


            “Population equilibrium” as I don’t have the time to read the whole thing, what does this phrase mean.

          • dannybhoy

            Essentially that the birth rate is the same as the rate of mortality. In many Western countries the mortality rate of the indigenous populations is higher than the birth rate; hence the idea that this can be fixed by increased immigration.
            According to the book America is the exception to this trend.

          • CliveM


            Thanks for the explanation.

            So in US terms, although it has significant immigration, because it’s indigenous population is able to maintain its birth rate above the mortality rate, it has population equilibrium.

            Fascinated to know how he defines Americas indigenous population!

          • dannybhoy

            In chapter 13 he says
            (and I kwote..)
            ..American fertility has stabilised at replacement. In other words as Europe and Japan reach the point of no return on the road to senility and depopulation, America will maintain its population, along with a healthy balance amongst age cohorts.”
            He connects the death of civilisations with (among other factors) the loss of religious faith and belief in core values..
            He says that in the US there are more Americans ‘of faith’ than citizens of any other industrial country.

            It’s quite an informative book. I recommend it.

      • Tutanekai

        Selective or not, it’s still immigration.

        • Maybe, maybe not. Temporary work visas. Conditional residency permits. Or better still, finding ways to utilize the idle capacity of millions of un- and under-employed. Fact is, there is no evidence that under the current conditions more immigration will improve anything.

          • dannybhoy

            I lived in Switzerland for a year some decades ago. At that time they had a guestworker policy which allowed particularly Italian “guest workers” to work without becoming citizens.

            “The Swiss universities founded in the late-19th century benefited from the arrival of German intellectuals, who fled home when the liberal revolution of 1848-1849 failed. During this period, Switzerland was still predominantly a country of emigration, as approximately 100,000 people, many of whom wanted to make their living as farmers, went to North America, Russia, and other countries.

            At the same time that people were leaving Switzerland, the country became a destination for Italians who were recruited for the major infrastructure projects of the late- 19th and early-20th centuries, most notably in the railroad sector. These Italian workers, who lived separately from the Swiss, lodged in shacks outside of the villages.
            Only in a few cases were they allowed to bring their families and to send their children to Catholic Italian schools.

            During the late-19th and early-20th centuries, the size of the foreign population across the country also increased: 41 percent of the people in Geneva, 28 percent in Basel, and 29 percent in Zurich were born outside Switzerland. Nationwide, the Germans outnumbered Italians and the French. Most of these immigrants came as craftsmen.”

            Note that the people who were coming in were educated, skilled craftsmen and labour for the big civil projects.

          • ceige

            Yes this is quite common. NZ draws seasonal workers on short term contracts from the Pacific Islands. And it is how Saudi Arabia maintains it’s existence, a lot of its population is made up of contracted workers, they don’t want to offer them citizenship as they have such a small number of actual citizens they would end up swamped.

          • ceige

            BTW the working conditions for some in construction in Saudi Arabia aren’t that great.

        • Yes, but involving much smaller numbers of economically and culturally valuable numbers of individuals who meet the requirements of the host population. Versus large numbers of dysfunctional, incompatible or even hostile groups we feel we have to accept only because they want to come. All immigrants are not equal and all migrations will not bear equal results.

          • Tutanekai

            Countries like Australia and New Zealand have operated selective immigration policies for a long time. But even there the social fabric is changing beyond all recognition.

            Take the city of Auckland, for example. I remember visiting New Zealand in the 70s with my parents when Auckland was still a predominately white city, to be sure with a large Maori and Polynesian population, but mainly white. A stroll down Queen Street in the central business district was like something out of a Miss Marple novel, with palm trees.

            I was in Auckland for a brief visit last year. What a difference! Walk down Queen Street now and you might think you were in Hong Kong. Asian faces everywhere.

            A selective immigration policy can still result in massive demographic change. Supporting an aging population will require massive immigration, selective or not. Social fabric will change beyond all recognition. That’s the key point as far as I can see.

          • I am indifferent to the “colour” or origin of people, but do believe that the cultures which brought about nations which attract immigrants should be maintained. Toronto, where I live, is multi-ethnic, but the majority of immigrants, including me, are well acculturated and want to maintain the language, ethics, values and institutions.

            But again, I’ll argue that your assumption that only immigration will sustain an ageing population is merely an old assumption based on long-past conditions and needs to be examined empirically and discussed objectively.

          • Tutanekai

            If the aging population is unwilling to renounce the privileges it has come to expect, immigration is the only solution for sustaining the economy that supports it. Aging populations vote, and they don’t vote for politicians that tell them they’re going to have to give up their gold-plated pensions and health benefits. Somebody has to foot the bill, so if there aren’t enough native born taxpayers, they have to be imported from abroad.

            That’s the very simple calculation on which all modern Western immigrant-driven economies are based. Airy fairy musings about “higher GDP and technological solutions”, or suddenly-burgeoning birthrates due to bans on abortion, are about as practical as feeding the elderly on goodwill and pie in the sky.

          • It is the notions that our economy is “immigrant-driven” for perpetuity, or that it depends on an endless growth of consumers that is not only airy-fairy, but a “clear and present danger” which needs to be examined and addressed. In fact, it is this mindless and hopeless race fore more cheap labour and grasping consumers …which are supposed to generate revenues for established classes and industries… which is holding back and even undermining existing and developing technologies and systems.

          • Dreadnaught

            If the aging population is unwilling to renounce the privileges it has come to expect.
            You WHAT?
            You mean the ‘privileges’ they paid their taxes for all their working lives. The privileges that their parents fought to preserve and build the Country to which the immigrants are They seem not to attempt to be British except to flaunt their relative wealth back home in the fly-bitten shit-holes they moved away from.
            Immigrants as a courtesy at least, should integrate and not pretend they are British but live it or leave it.

          • The Explorer

            Bear in mind you might be talking to Linus Version 3.

          • Tutanekai

            No matter what the aged may or may not have done, their pensions and health care are paid for by the economically active population, which is in decline. Immigration is the only feasible means of reversing that decline.

            Like it or not, we need immigrants.

          • Dreadnaught

            Yes we do need immigrants but only the ones we really do need. Obviously you don’t mind shelling out 7% of GDP on foreign aid – I do. You don’t mind sending our troops in to battle while the cowards run from their families and responsibilities insteaqd of fighting their enemies at home.
            70% of these ‘refugees’ are men, single men aged between 18 and 30. The Poles came here and formed their own battle groups, so did the Jews, Free French, Czechs and Belgians.

            Genuine refugees – yes, without question – but not permanent residency. Go back when its over and rebuild your country.

            Most of this bunch at Calais and the rest of Europe would happily take your job and your house, and your tax dollars and think nothing of it. But you just don’t give a stuff so long as you are ok – for now.

          • Tutanekai

            You pay tax in dollars and you’re going all “Land of Hope and Glory” on us?

            Britain’s foreign aid budget is appropriate for an economy the size of ours. Our foreign policy has always involved overseas military interventions, and probably always will. And successive waves of immigration have made the British what they are they are today. If they hadn’t, you’d be speaking a Celtic tongue more akin to Welsh than English.

            What you seem to want to do is freeze time and have nothing change ever again. In the real world, that never happens.

          • The Explorer

            Did a visit to Rotorua give you the idea for the name Tutanekai?

          • Malcolm Smith

            That is because the governments of New Zealand and Australia (I speak as an Australian) are deliberately trying to destroy the racial and cultural heritage of our countries. In fact, 30 years ago the Deputy PM specifically stated that he wanted Australia to be a Eurasian country.

          • The Explorer

            That was the thinking behind European multiculturalism. Nationalism causes wars. Destroy nationalism by destroying the nation.

      • dannybhoy

        You mean (shock -horror!) we should d-i-s-c-r-i-m-i-n-a-t-e?
        (Thump! Danny faints…)

    • dannybhoy

      “If we want to keep the elderly in the (relative) luxury they’ve become
      used to, we need more taxpayers. As birth rates are steadily declining,
      the only way to get those taxpayers is to import them.”

      Thus moving the problem further down the generational line…

      Very interesting article here on Japanese demographics and future trends.
      Japan has not as yet embraced the immigration solution. I am fairly confident that I read or heard somewhere that Japan sees this as part of a cycle, and accepts a shrinking population in preference to a loss of historical homogeneity.
      I wish I could find where I read/saw it!

  • Dreadnaught

    All God’s Children? So must be the rest of the 7 Billion plus on the Planet – Why not invite them all – What a bunch of sentimental numb-skulls they are holding the banner.

  • dannybhoy

    “The Bible’s concern for the gēr is reflected in the number of
    times they are mentioned – almost always in the context of vulnerability
    and need. Many economic migrants may also fall into this category,
    since they have left their country of origin due to some degree of
    hardship or limited opportunity, and settled for the long term in the UK
    – often taking on low-paid jobs that native Britons are unwilling to

    I still don’t see this as an argument or justification for the levels of immigration being seen in Western Europe.
    It is unsustainable on so many levels that I fail to see how anyone can actually see it as a sensible policy.
    Apart from the compassion argument what is there to recommend it?
    More foreign workers means lower wages for British workers with families, with mortgages, with taxes to pay.
    More immigrants means irrevocable demographic changes, to the degree that the native peoples will inevitably become minorities, perhaps oppressed and dispossessed minorities. This is inevitable.
    Our Muslim population by and large shows no desire to assimilate. Their religious values are quite different and intolerant of ours. As their numbers and political influence grow the clamour for the adoption of Shari’a law is likely to grow. What then for our own British laws and values?
    If I took in refugees into our home of two, how many would it take for it to no longer be our home? Apply that nationally. How many refugees will it take to change our nation for ever, and our own culture to be lost for ever?
    There are other ways of showing compassion to the dispossessed. Building safe well equipped refugee camps near to their own countries is a far more sensible solution to this crisis.

    • This is the trouble with maudlin, over-simplified biblical interpretations that get thrown at any issue. At no time was there a situation in ancient Israel where large numbets of refugers wete accepted and settled, looked after and given full citizenship with equal rights within a few short years. The strangers in the Bible were peoples allowed to stay or immigrate, often temporarily, in Etetz Israel.

      Btw, our PM is being savagely grilled for prioritizing Christians and other minorities over Muslims. Election is a week from now.

      • ceige

        I thought the biblical concept of care for the foreigner originated from the time/s when God’s people were exiled and became foreigners and en-masse at that (e.g. care for the foreigner for you were one also once).

        In NZ economic migrants actually have to enter via a points system which usually means they are quite wealthy, qualified or have family connections. Except for those immigration workers the Gov’t brings in from other nations on temporary contracts to fulfil labour needs. Not many immigrants bar those entering under our refugee quota would fit the description of the ‘poor stranger’ identified in this post. The article therefore, biblically, definitely has a point; it would be closer to the heart of the Gospel if our immigration policy more closely favoured ‘the least’. However, can one expect this in a largely non christian society?

        The laws allowing foreign students or immigrants to spend a few years here working and travelling I see as a positive for locals and the visitors.

        In the case of the Syria/Iraq crisis under UN law Christians and ethnic minorities should get preference for resettlement as they are the most persecuted (noting approx 40% of Syrian refugee’s are Christian). Notwithstanding one must see all as God’s children and worthy of help.

        • It’s not my place to dictate what you believe as a Christian your obligations may or may not be, but I will certainly comment whenever the Torah is selectively mined to reinforce notions which are in fact foreign to it.

          The biblical concept of care for the stranger is not a manifesto for open borders and limitless welfare to all, including idolators, law-breakers, thieves and invaders. It is not a vague concept arising from a single incident or admonition, but is comprised of a vast set of specific laws and commandments in scripture and custom. The Torah defines nationhood, stresses the importance of borders and national and personal security, repeatedly acknowledges differences between nations and peoples and above all, sets strict requirements for the conduct of the stranger, binding him to the strictures of the Noahide Laws, as well as the laws and customs of the community. There is also a defined hierarchy of charity; one’s family comes first, then one’s community, nation and finally the stranger. In other words, if you indiscriminately take in strangers who break laws, impoverish your family and neighbours and endanger the community and the nation, you have violated Torah law.

          • dannybhoy

            Well said Avi.
            Any Christian who has read the Hebrew Scriptures will recognise that the people of Israel had laws for every aspect of life as a people, as a nation.
            To try and extrapolate from few verses that
            “Hoorah! God is now a multiculturalist, and thinks mass migration is the way to go”, is nonsense.

            6 “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.” Deuteronomy 7:6 (ESVUK)

            And for us Christians…

            “9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. 1 Peter 2:9 (ESVUK)

          • ceige

            Yes Danny Boy, but the principle of OT nationhood for the Christian, has since been replaced by the principle of the ‘Kingdom of God’ which is an everlasting Kingdom and encompasses all those, from all nations, who have or will accept God through Christ. Notwithstanding honour is given to those of the tribe of Judah.

          • dannybhoy

            You said it…
            “encompasses all those, from all nations, who have or will accept God through Christ.”
            To lump everyone in as having the same values the same goals, the same practices can only lead to chaos and confusion.
            If God’s Chosen people had of adopted an all inclusive immigration policy, how long would they have remained distinctly Chosen?
            In fact that was one of Israel’s greatest struggles, staying loyal to their God.

          • ceige

            And does our loyalty to our God now who says there is no longer Jew nor Gentile… but all are one in Christ Jesus, still have national boundaries? Jesus didn’t seem too discerning about whom he reached out his hand to prostitutions, centurion’s, the samaritans etc.

            My first reaction to the idea of taking in refugees from Syria was pretty fear based I am ashamed to say, argh what if there is the odd terrorist in the bunch! But then to my chagrin my mind was reminded of the Good Samaritan, can I let the fear of what it may mean for me (like the priest who passed by did) stop me from doing what is right? Stephen died at the hands of violent men yet considered it still better to care, so did Jesus.

            For me personally my greatest struggle in staying loyal to God is to love those who don’t love me and to pray for my enemies – on a family/individual front and in the context of the wider world/society. I realise how shallow is my faith compared to those christians who live in countries where they are persecuted for their faith, or for becoming christians. And humbled even more at their willingness to suffer to spread the good news to those who persecute them.

            Secularism and how we respond in countries who have lost Christ as a compass seems to be the biggest challenge in the western world.

          • IanCad

            Avi, I’ve cut and pasted your comment to refer to when needed.
            Truly, my man, that is one of your very best. Concise, clear, and irrefutable.

          • ceige

            Hi Avi thanks for the reply.

            My apologies that I am a bit ignorant of the Torah and how far the OT mirrors it or not.

            I doubt any society would provide a good welcome to people who break their laws, and fair enough so long as they are just laws.

            In respect to my study of the OT the principle of caring for those who come into your midst from other lands which is mentioned several times and the NT e.g.

            “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” Deuteronomy

            Originates not from foreigners amongst the people of Israel but from the times when Israelites were taken in amongst foreign nations. Definitely the sense of nationhood as God’s people was also a strong principle.

            The article helped me (if the explanation is accurate) distinguish say between the OT narratives about remaining apart from nations who follow other God’s and concept of care for the foreigner, by clarifying the status of two types of people in the ancient world – between those whom came to your country for refuge/help and those who purely sought political or social alliance. How much of this applies to today is another matter!

            In respect to charity for Christian’s, I suppose it is seen as treating the other person/people as equal to yourself, however, it can extend beyond this to loving others as Christ loved us. In this case it is being willing to love even giving ones life for a friend or an enemy.

          • dannybhoy

            “In respect to charity for Christian’s, I suppose it is seen as treating
            the other person/people as equal to yourself, however, it can extend
            beyond this to loving others as Christ loved us. In this case it is
            being willing to love even giving ones life for a friend or an enemy.”
            There is a difference between what one does as an individual and one’s responsibilities to the society of which you are a part..
            Remember the story of the Trojan horse?

          • ceige

            As a follower of Jesus I think our faith informs all our actions – individual and societal. However, yes, I do agree wisdom is needed. I am not advocating completely open borders not that Greece really has had a choice, just how with mercy, do all the nations deal with this current crisis?

            As for the Trojan horse. I think that has already arrived sorry. Don’t ISIS love their English recruits? Many of them from a European origin?

            What is interesting is what people are failing to see. Islam is in crisis. Sunni’s and Shiites conflicts are increasing, ISIS is actually causing more Islamic Muslims to question rather than embrace their faith.

          • You’re welcome and no need to apologize…even if you’re a Kiwi.

            As I said before, I won’t get into issues of Christian interpretations and ethics, but it seems to me that no matter what your position is, you need to take into account your fellow Christians…and many disagree with you even on theological and ethical grounds. Immigration is also a serious national issue which affects the lives of all citizens and the nature and future of their nation.

          • dannybhoy

            Again, well said Avi, because it’s not just about me or my beliefs and what I consider as important; it’s about my society.

            Just had this vid sent to me..
            “Hungary : Shocking videos on Phones left by Migrants..”


          • Charming video. Especially the head-chopping motion those cute little rascals are into now; must be a new dance floor move. And was that Curley and Moe having a slap-contest? My fave bit…after the one of the guy shooting his buddy in the gut as part of their morning callisthenics.

            To reciprocate, here’s a video to warm the cockles of your heart, one of a nice lady doing her bit for Muslim-Jewish dialogue after her baby was treated by a team of Jew-ogres at a Zionist Imperialist hospital:

          • dannybhoy

            Avi what the girl said about life being of no value, we Westerners do not understand it, and therein lies the danger. People assume that other people share their values and outlook. It’s normal to do that, but consider the German school interview I posted. Consider the reality of homegrown terrorism, even though people have been born and raised here. Even though they or their parents may have chosen to come and live here…the power of faith is so strong. The fatalism and the honour of martyrdom.
            This is not about life and progress and improvement. It’s about the glorification of death and the clinging on to the past.
            It makes me very sad.

          • I was struck by similar thoughts when watching both, Danny. Years of studying and reading up on history and anthropology and here I am, not really …not viscerally… getting it that no, we don’t all think and feel alike, even if it looks like it sometimes.

          • dannybhoy

            I had boarding school, then living away from home for work, then the Merchant Navy. But what really made me see that people are really so different was when I first went to Israel and did an ulpan, I loved kibbutz life, and I honestly thought that all Jewish people would love Israel because “it was their home..”
            I was so surprised to find that some of the young Jewish olim hadashim and volunteers really didn’t! Especially Brits would struggle, because believe me some Israelis can be very abrupt, very direct and even (to our minds) rude.
            Slowly slowly I began to realise that it is the culture we are born into that shapes us and world view,
            The more ‘civilised’ and educated we are, the more we are open to deceiving ourselves that we’re really communicating with this person from another culture – because they have been educated and civilised in the western way..
            Sometimes we are but sometimes, we only think we are..

          • ” … if you indiscriminately take in strangers who break laws, impoverish your family and neighbours and endanger the community and the nation, you have violated Torah law.”

            Well it would be rather daft to do any of the above. However, the terms Jack has underlined are all relative and matters of prudential judgement.

            “There is also a defined hierarchy of charity; one’s family comes first, then one’s community, nation and finally the stranger.”

            And this is where it becomes even more difficult. How to divide one resources according to God’s will. Jack believes we can agree that Jesus accurately summed up the Torah when He said:

            “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and thy whole soul and thy whole mind. This is the greatest of the commandments, and the first. And the second, its like, is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments, all the law and the prophets depend.”

            It is complex in application. Does one deprive one’s family, community and nation of wealth in order to share with the stranger who is in need and, if so, to what extent?

          • dannybhoy

            Context is all, Jack.

          • Yes it is Danny and applying moral principles means keeping them in mind.

          • dannybhoy

            I agree with Avi’s post, It is what is taught in the New Testament also, and it has never been the case in history that a sovereign nation or even the EU opened itself up to unlimited immigration like this.
            I do not believe this is in the West’s best interest or in Christianily’s best interest either.

            Watch the video Jack.

          • Avi’s post was loaded with adjectives. Jack merely pointed this out and also cited the words of Christ about our moral responsibility to others as opposed to some undefined ranking of priorities. He hasn’t argued in favour of mass, unlimited immigration. It’s the use of hyperbole he’s commenting on.

          • Not sure what your beef is with, Jack. Pathological altruism is real, costly and damaging to individuals and their families, especially in religious societies. Halakha has defined the hierarchy of charitable giving in writing at leadt since Babylonian exile. This too is meant to limit damage from people getting carried away and impoverishing themselves and their families. What this body of laws and customs accomplished is an ordered, self-directed taxation towards social services in an age lacking the bureaucracy and technology to manage such.

            And as danny said, context is everything.

          • Jack has no “beef”, Avi. He’s just pointing out his understanding of scripture and what he understand God expects. Nothing he posted can be understood as support for “pathological altruism” or for people “getting carried away and impoverishing themselves and their families”. Again, these are loaded terms.

          • Most terms are loaded, Jack, but reasonable people who speak the same language tend to reach agreement on meanings and definitions.

            You questioned my use if “indiscriminately,” “impoverish” and “endanger,” calling them…or my use of them “loaded.” So, if the Oxford won’t suffice, here are some examples in my defense:

            *Indiscriminate* where an immigration policy consists of taking on anyone and everyone who manages to set a foot on a nation’s territory.

            *Impoverish* as in causing someone to lose significant amounts of money or property or to join the ranks of the poor…as generally defined by his society or agreed upon metrics.

            If you bring in migrants into a country or the homeless into your home without thoroughly checking who they are (kinda indiscriminately) and what they may have done, you risk terrorism or crime in the former and theft, rape or murder in the latter. Thus one can *endanger* a nation or one’s family.

            In yoyr previous post you imply …rather snarkily… that it is self-evident that “it would be rather daft to do any of the above,” which is true for most of us, but people do it often enough to be a problem that has been addressed religiously and to earn its own jargon term, *pathological altruism* to which you also objected for some reason.

            As for how to work out how much to give and to whom …and to do so justly… there are helpful illustrations and formulas in my religion and I’m sure in yours as well.

          • Without rereading the article, wasn’t it 25,000 refugees offered asylum in Britain last year? The bulk of migrants appear to be students and for the most part Chinese. As for Europe, the largest group seem to have been Polish – a Christian nation.
            Jack has no issue with refusing admission to those considered hostile or unsuitable and those intent on not integrating. However, he recalls a recent exchange where Jack was talking about his early experiences in Northern Ireland and you concurred any parent would do all he could to leave such a situation behind. Are Syrians really any different? And let’s remember the West culpability in destabilising this country in its own perceived interests.

            As for Christian having illustrations and formulas for picking and choosing between people desperate to gain shelter, weighing the cost to oneself and one’s family and nation, and limiting numbers accordingly, Jack knows of none.

          • To begin with your last point, the formulae I clearly refered to pertains to laws on charity in an ordered community and under ordinary circumstances. Don’t quote me on this, but 10% of net income is the minimum and 30% the max for folks of medium income for my ilk. It gets more complicated of course, with the very wealthy and very poor; rules for inheritance, what constitutes giving, etc. I remember coming across similar guidelines in medieval Church Law. The question is whether you want to try and extrapolate principles from ecclesiastic custom or from current data and socio-political conditions.

            As for your other points, your family’s migration from Ireland to the UK hardly compares. You did not seek to immigrate to Japan, expecting welfare and housing until and if you manage to learn the language and acculturate. Yours was an internal migration…culturally, at least. In my case, my family’s bona fide UN refugee status did not spare us from documenting our state of health, Interpol and NATO clearance, fiscal responsibility, education, employability and a beginner’s facility in English when applying for Canadian residency. No, I don’t blame migrants from wanting to bring themselves and their families to the best countries in Europe…Germany, Holland, the UK…and a part of me roots for the genuine and well-intentioned families. But I also don’t blame the citizens of those countries from not wanting to further strain their economies and their social services capacities and to demographically dilute their unique cultures with large masses of people whose religion, attitudes and life styles already present serious problems.

          • dannybhoy

            Very well put Avi.

            “No, I don’t blame migrants from wanting to bring themselves and their
            families to the best countries in Europe…Germany, Holland, the
            UK…and a part of me roots for the genuine and well-intentioned
            families. But I also don’t blame the citizens of those countries from
            not wanting to further strain their economies and their social services
            capacities and to demographically dilute their unique cultures with
            large masses of people whose religion, attitudes and life styles already
            present serious problems.”

            This is exactly my thoughts on the matter. No one could blame a desperate individual or family man from wanting a better life.
            And I do admire people who come and work hard and achieve. That’s a good human trait.
            But this does not mean that my concerns for the impact these successful immigrants will have on my country, on our economy and our laws are mean spirited or unfounded.
            It is not wrong of me to reflect that people who emigrate here have left their cultural practices and values behind.
            Or that their long term goals and political influence may not recognise or consider the future of the indigenous population either.
            That I am xenophobic in thinking that perhaps should our country find its self in a war for survival, we could count on all our citizens to fight alongside us.
            That’s just common sense based on the evidence so far.

          • dannybhoy

            I like that term, “pathological altruism.” It fits what I consider to be quite a lot of (Western) activity whether political, social or charitable, which ends up having unintended consequences for all concerned.

            The parable of the wise virgins springs to mind..
            Matthew 25:1>13

    • ceige

      This is certainly the preferred option, and many of the refugees wish to one day return home. However, unfortunately, the refugee camps operating in Jordan and Lebanon have been overburdened for years. One in every fifth person in Lebanon is a Syrian refugee. And these are countries who have no choice, the people cross the border, and you are directly faced with do I care or don’t I? Also, a difficulty is many Christian’s are forced from the UN camps due to discrimination and stay instead with other families and are therefore not eligible for repatriation via the UN – because the present gov’t of Syria treated minorities well some of population feel christian’s were/are automatically pro the government.

      Syria has been the most stable country in the Middle East for years and provided a safe haven for Christians with a secular Arab leadership where most ethnic groups got along fine together until the current leader came into place (and of course ISIS stirred up things), so what has happened here is sad. 11 million displaced people is huge, even on the comparison scale of African disasters.

      I can acknowledge the difficulties faced by European countries being so close and already having a high number of immigrant populations due to (you will know better than me), but I imagine many now see themselves as British or French etc. I think this crisis would be best treated as an international one with European leaders appealing worldwide for countries willing to take in those seeking refuge. The Catholic and Anglican church’s in NZ have proposed to their people and to the gov’t a one parish one family offer – 40 out of 60 parish’s in Wgtn the capital took up this challenge, however, the government although extending the intake of refugees over the next two years hasn’t proceeded any further.

      • “Syria has been the most stable country in the Middle East for years and provided a safe haven for Christians with a secular Arab leadership where most ethnic groups got along fine together until the current leader came into place (and of course ISIS stirred up things), so what has happened here is sad.”

        Why blame the current leader?
        The Syrian Civil War is a consequence of the ‘Arab Spring’. The unrest began in the early spring of 2011 with nationwide protests against President Bashar al-Assad’s government whose forces responded with a violent crackdowns.

        Bashar Hafez al-Assad, the President of Syria, took power in 2000 when he succeeded his father, who had led Syria for 30 years until his death.

        The trouble in Syria is multi-layered and much of it a proxy war between other nations who have been funding and supporting opposing factions.

        • ceige

          Indeed Happy Jack you are right, perhaps I worded that incorrectly. Until when the currently leader came in and pro-democracy (initially peaceful) movements began. Then of course came in all the rest, ISIS … Russia.. US.. Saudi Arabi .. all with their own particular agenda’s. And then, well it just got messy.

          Bashar’s Father did an amazing job keeping the country practical nuetral accepting christians and sunni Muslims into the country during Sadam Hussien’s days of glory.

          By the way I like Happy Jack better than Grouchy Jack : ) are you one in the same?

          • Indeed “he” is part of “we” …. Sometimes Jack’s author likes to lighten the mood. Wait until you meet “Mad Jack”.
            God Bless.

          • ceige

            Jack certainly does so. He reminds me very much of the Seven Dwarfs…

          • Jack is working on it ….

          • ceige

            Good on Jack – a bit of lightheartedness is a tonic…

          • Grouchy Jack

            Grrr … you prefer that wimp?

          • ceige

            Oh yes Mr Grouchy, my grumpy men quota is already exceeded : )

  • Mark

    It’s all a front.
    Rose Hudson-Wilkin on BBC This Week a while back, was suggesting the “we must do something,” implying open doors. Andrew Neil asked her about numbers. “I don’t care about numbers,” she said (or something along those lines). “Numbers matter,” said Neil. She knew she was beaten, and in fact Neil was being gentle with her, not as he would with a politician.
    Tim Farron on Question Time did the same “open doors” thing. When asked by Dimbleby about numbers verses services and resources, he said (paraphrased), “Of course there needs to be limits.” So he agreed with Teresa May after all.
    The Archbishop of Canterbury says he’ll take a migrant family in (to some sort of out cottage on his land), after a media thing about people taking migrants in. After all this time of not taking the Britsh homeless in.
    It’s all to look good, nothing more.

    • Inspector General

      British homelessness. 2 million are looking for a permanent, and acceptable, home. Trouble is, not one is an asylum seeker from a country that said types have wrecked with war which is being conducted right now by asylum seekers’ close relatives..

      • ceige

        Pardon Mark and Inspector, but do you happen to have taken any homeless in?

        • Non sequitur. Neither Mark, nor the Inspector implied that the solution is for people to take strangers into their own homes or at their own expense. They seem to be saying, rather sensibly, that it is our governments’ responsibility to solve domestic issues first before importing problems from abroad.

          Do you habitually bring the homeless or migrants into your home?

          • ceige

            Your supposition is probably correct Avi. I guess we all face that question often. Our (NZ) has social policies which both support our own and those abroad in need. Christchurch (NZ) whose people’s need is great post-earthquake sent a big donation to Haiti after their earthquake. Is it an either or, or a both and?

            My remark is aimed at the rather pointed report that the ABC actions are based on the motivation of looking good. It is easy to sling arrows at particular people. It is hardly say, respectable, to condemn a person for offering to give refuge to a refugee and not a homeless person (or an orphan, or a … etc) if oneself has done neither.

          • Of course it shouldn’t be an either-or sotuation, but one of priorities in alocation.

            I’m more inclined to think that the ABC was motivated by a desire to lead through example, rather than to look good…but as an example it is a poor one. For an individual who has control over considerable realestate and resources, it is unfair to challenge and shame people with what for him would be an eadily manageable symbolic gesture, but for others an expensive and potentially dangerous adventure.

        • Inspector General

          Certainly not!

          The very idea…{SNORT}

          • ceige

            Shame, inspector, shame : )

          • Inspector General

            There is no shame, ceige, you mischievous devil…

    • dannybhoy

      But politicians trying to look good in the eyes of other politicians can only be done at the expense of the rest of us.
      Gesture politics usually involves two fingers…

      • ceige

        I thought though Danny some percentage of the Syrian refugee crisis are actually fleeing Daesh, certainly the Assyrian locals are…

        • dannybhoy

          The UK cannot (positively) discriminate over who they take in although I think we mainly accept from refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon.
          The UK is no longer officially a Christian country. It is a multicultural multi religious society, committed to abiding by Human Rights legislation.
          You mentioned the AofC being targeted for gestures towards housing refugees..
          Consider, we have thousands upon thousands of homeless British people. Young, old, ex soldiers, unemployed, living on the streets, sleeping in cars, using food banks.
          As Avi said in his excellent explanation of Torah laws charity and compassion…
          “There is also a defined hierarchy of charity; one’s family comes first, then one’s community, nation and finally the stranger.”
          So much of what is going on now in the western world is mushy, maudlin, emotional responses, driven by a shallow media which cares only about ‘instanews’, breaking stories and ratings.

          • ceige

            Definitely the media is not an unbiased source of information or sensationalist free : ) ..

            I just don’t know about the hierarchy of charity. What’s that phrase, it’s complicated. Does England and its people have the resources to help the homeless in it’s own country; if those with the means and the government really desired too? And could they afford to do this and care for the stranger?

            My understanding is the AofC has been quite pro-active on the social justice front in his own backyard also.

          • dannybhoy

            The hierarchy of charity was Avi’s phrase and dear Avi follows his Jewish faith. The same principles are there in the New Testament, but not cast in the same way..
            Our Lord’s injunction in Luke 10 to love our neighbour has to be seen in the context of the times and the faith: Judaism.The lawyer is a devout Jew.

            It also has to be balanced with our Lord’s command to love one another, to visit the sick and those in prison, clearly referring to believers ( Matthew 25:10 – The brethren are the Christian poor and needy and suffering, in the
            first place, but ultimately and inferentially any suffering people

            Also James 1:27 coupled with Acts 6 and the feeding of the widows..
            James 2:14 “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled”, without giving them the things needed for the body, what good[b] is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.”

            Also Galatians 6: 1>10 “10 So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.”

            There are many places where it is clear we show our love and commitment to the Church by looking out for one another. The Church is not the world!
            However in our daily lives we should do good to all men regardless of who they are or where they come from.
            This does not (imv) negate our responsibility as citizens to do what is best for our nation and society to preserve and protect our freedoms.
            Otherwise why on earth were two world wars fought, why has this country especially fought against the oppressions of other faiths or dogmas that were/are at odds with our own?

          • ceige

            Hi Dannyboy, we may be in different paragraphs on this scriptural reference. I see the parable of the good samaritan as Jesus widening the teacher’s of the laws concept of ‘who is a neighbour’.

            But we are on the same page. Countries, and especially governments, have a mandate to protect and act in the interests of their citizens. Henceforth, as with all issues taking in asylum seekers has to be a carefully thought; but one done with compassion.

            As wise as serpents, as harmless as doves….

          • dannybhoy

            ” I see the parable of the good samaritan as Jesus widening the teacher’s of the laws concept of ‘who is a neighbour’.”
            Yes, so do I, but my point is that in the context of being God’s Chosen people they believed that they should be separated, and cleave to God’s commandments in order to enjoy His blessings and protection.
            The Samaritans were despised by the Jews..
            and the context is that they were neighbours, who also claimed to worship Yahweh..
            This says nothing about multicultural societies or mass immigration.
            Jesus does not say that the Jews (and of course our Lord in the flesh was a Jew) should abandon their separateness and welcome all comers from wherever.

          • ceige

            Oh definitely. I think the Samaritan’s were a mixed race, they followed a somewhat misconstrued form of Judaism.

            The clincher is though is ‘who is the neighbour’ and in this case Jesus points out it is the person, regardless of the religious background, who helps the beggar (whose identity we do not know).

            Although the priest, had he aided the beggar would have under the law been unclean for a period of time, this explanation from Jesus must have stung a bit.

            The lesson is pretty simple, your neighbour is anyone who crosses your path who is in need.

            But as you say this can’t be indiscriminately applied to the modern problem of mass asylum seeking.

            All it says about multi-cultural societies is on a personal level, if you live in one, love your neighbour as yourself.

          • dannybhoy

            “All it says about multi-cultural societies is on a personal level, if you live in one, love your neighbour as yourself.”
            And I agree with that too, but it doesn’t mean that multiculties will want to mix!
            And anyway, if I am a part of the historically indigenous people of Great Britain, and this is our country, why should I be forced to feel as if I should mix, or should abandon the parts of my culture that others take offence T?
            Why do caring compassionate people feel I should do that?
            Surely it is for the incomer to adapt to my culture if they wish to enjoy the benefits and privileges of my country?

            Now if in the course of my daily life I come across a person in distress or in need, I should help them, but does that mean I should give them the keys to my house or include them in my will?
            Of course not.
            My family. my friends, my community, my country come first.

          • ceige

            You should definitely not abandon parts of your culture… As for mixing well … guess there’s no mandate there either way, and it is true of some places and ethnic groups sticking together as a lot of expats do when they live abroad.

            Most certainly immigrants should abide by the laws of the land they live in.

            I am historically indigenous of Great Britain too – England, Scotland and Ireland : )

            ‘My family, my friends, my community, my country come first’ – is probably where we differ in respect to who we see as these things. I have Sri Lankan friends, Chinese Singaporean friends, Indian friends … all who are Christian (and yes abide by the laws of our country). For me my brothers and sisters in Christ are my family and as such nationalism (although not always a bad thing) takes second place in my heart to God’s Kingdom.

          • dannybhoy

            I agree with that too, but I make a distinction between my Christian life and my life as a British citizen.
            Without my British citizenship I would have no framework through which to express my faith, to enjoy my freedoms and opportunities.
            Of course relationships with my close brothers and sisters in Christ are the most dear to me, but I recognise that there are men and women of good will who whilst no sharing my faith share similar values and love and appreciation of country.

  • It seems that the authorities don’t want too many negative stories about refugees and migrants broadcast because they already have groups distributing anti-refugee leaflets about and the gov. is fearful of what might ensue. They
    can’t cope with the vast numbers that have arrived which are mainly
    in the towns and cities. Refugees and migrants are sleeping in makeshift beds in tents, halls, containers crammed in and tempers are
    beginning to fray, some refugees and migrants are being ungrateful,
    complaining saying food no good and no service!

    Bavaria just cannot cope, the main station in Munich Hauptbahnhof ground to a halt, trains couldn’t leave. Bavaria wants to close its regional and national borders.

    There is a free concert in Munich Koenigs platz this evening laid on especially for the refugees and masses of volunteer workers that have been helping in this crisis. There is a lot of positive news being put out by MSM, but, on YouTube
    I see people’s videos of the tensions that are starting to increase.

    The influx is not so noticeable in some small towns and villages yet though.

    The price they are going to pay for all this mass open borders hasn’t even been considered as they have been totally swamped. And, as the migrants and refugees realise that Germany is NOT the land of milk and honey they expected their disappointment is beginning to violence.

    • Inspector General

      Where would we be without You Tube, Marie…

      • True. I just watched an hour-long collection of classic Donald Duck and Hewey and Dewey ‘toons. Time well spent.

        • Inspector General

          You are a wag, sir!

        • Old Blowers would be proud of you.

          • Where is Old Blowers. Last I know, he started work…fir whatwver reason.

          • He posts occasionally but not too often these days. He posted a week or so ago.

          • Work does, unfortunately, get in the way of blogging.

      • And mobile phones with cameras Inspector.

      • Hiya Ludwig. You are so right.

      • The Explorer

        Politicians must loathe You Tube for revealing what they would rather keep suppressed.

    • Our MSM in Canada never shows the border riots by the young males and only shows crying women and children behind barbed wires. Still, our Conservatives may have noticed that the initial passions have cooled, that people are starting to get nervous and are taking their time, mumbling vague and qualified promises and not committing to anything until after the elections.

    • dannybhoy

      And there’s this fifteen minute video made in Germany with students of Islamic families born and educated in Germany…

      • It’s the same wherever they go, they never seek to integrate but to dominate and take over. We know this and European countries know this. I’ve just read Julia Hartley-Brewer’s article about a group of mad luvvies and malicious old judges who’ve signed a petition for the government to open it’s doors to more of these ‘refugees’. Outrageous!

      • ceige

        Check out this guy

        I have been trying to encourage people to read his book, it’s quite insightful

        • dannybhoy

          O, I bought the book last week. My wife is reading it now. It’s particularly useful as he is the son of a Palestinian sheik, a devout Muslim working with and Hamas..
          He himself became involved with Israeli intelligence and around the same time met with a Christian group and subsequently became a Christian.
          As you say, to be recommended.

          • ceige

            Yes it is good, always interesting getting a perspective from the inside so to speak. ‘Seeking Allah Finding Jesus’ is also good if you haven’t heard of it – this is the biography of Nabeel who was a Muslim immigrant to the US and is now a Christian apologist alongside Ravi Zacharius. His books value amongst other things lies in his description of what it is like as an immigrant in the US, quite detailed understanding of Islamic teaching and then the emotion laid decision for him to change faiths.

            Slight correction – teacher gene’s never – Son of Hammas, is the son of the Hammas leader. He was arrested for throwing stones at a tank and tortured by Israeli intelligence, and subsequently agreed (as a teenager) to become a ‘double-agent’ to save his skin. After covertly ‘working for both sides’ for quite a while he was introduced to Christianity. He makes sense of a lot of which is not known or covered by the media at large.

          • dannybhoy

            Yes, I didn’t make that clear, it was his father who was a devout Muslim.
            I can’t wait to hear what my wife thinks of the book, because having spent five years in Israel and having some experience of Palestinians and Palestinian Christians I have my own impressions.
            There is another book I can commend to you,
            “The Imam’s daughter” by Hannah Shah

          • ceige

            Thank you, I will look it up. That must have been an interesting experience. It was great to hear in the news the other day of a gathering between Palestinian Christian’s and Messianic Jews.

            Not to burst your bubble but the book doesn’t say a lot about Palestinian Christians (the group he attended was an outreach to a mix of Jews and Muslim Arabs) but Arab Palestinians yes lots of insights there….

            Must get on with my day… no doubt you are at the end of yours,
            God Bless

          • dannybhoy

            Thank you
            You too.
            Make my day and tell me you follow Rugby Union…..

          • ceige

            Definitely go the AB’s!!

          • dannybhoy

            McCaw and Carter are past it. Time to go now……

          • CliveM

            You’ve got to excuse DB he’s english and in mourning. Also in awe of the Rugby superpowers like the AB’s and Scotland.

          • ceige

            Yes jealousy is a sad thing. We can’t help it if talent just comes naturally Aye?!

  • len

    If we scale this immigration question down to a more personal level would we leave the front door of our house open and invite everyone in or would we want some sort of control over who entered our house?.
    Many migrants seem to be young males who are only too ready to riot if they do not get their demands met and parts of the UK already have problems with grooming of young vulnerable girls.

    • ceige

      If there were beggars on my doorstep? I would do what I was able to do.

      I am not sure about migrants but in the syrian crisis yes about 60 per cent who have left are under 18 year of age. I think the fact that many are young men is that they were more able to make the gruelling trip to escape than families, or women, or younger children.

  • Anton

    At the recent Tory Party conference Teresa May warned that high levels of immigration make it impossible to build a cohesive society and David Cameron agreed with the comment. All well and good, except they are the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, ie the executive. They sound like the opposition. I believe these words do not reflect their policies and are merely to lull “the people”.

    A Japanese manga artist made a cartoon of a Middle Eastern girl and captioned it as follows: “I want to live a safe and clean life, eat gourmet food, go out, wear pretty things, and live a luxurious life… all at the expense of someone else,” reads the text on the illustration above. “I have an idea. I’ll become a refugee.” This has caused some debate:

    • Dennis Lessenis

      As Andrew Neil said ( ) – Teresa May’s speech at the Tory Conference was really just an attack on herself and an admission of her government’s failure. 300,000 immigrants last year (or the equivalent of the population of one of the larger London boroughs, to put this in perspective). I have no problem with immigration, per se – but, as I have noted in my own comment, on Mr Scott’s post, we have to ask questions about why some cultures can come to the UK and get on with it – becoming wholesome members of society (e.g. Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Chinese, etc.) while others – such as Muslims and some East Europeans – are massively over represented in our prisons, welfare system and in committing certain kinds of crime (e.g. sex offenses, violent crime and drug dealing).

      Although not accurate research, one thing I noticed over the summer, when for almost four months I headed to work each day wearing an ankle to thigh leg brace and walking on two crutches whilst recovering from a complex tibial head fracture, is that native Brits, Africans, Afro-Caribbeans, Indians and Muslims of various ethnic backgrounds gladly gave up their seats on the train for me, during my 30 minute commute into King’s Cross or on the tube, en route to my place of work in Westminster – whereas, East Europeans (particularly workmen) were far, far less likely, unless I publically shamed them into giving me a seat – or others in the carriage told them to move. (As an aside, if I could do this journey every working day for almost four months, in considerable pain and with significant difficulty – why the hell can’t some of our native and immigrant benefits’ scum not get off their arses and get to work? Another failure of the government!!!)

      Although anecdotal, this suggests alien cultures are not necessarily beneficial to our society. The only immigration we should have into the UK is via a points system, like that of Australia – and we should accept vulnerable people from refugee camps –but only when there is a wilful desire on their part to assimilate to Western values and culture and not run around in a bedsheet and expect public money to support their oppressive religion and culture.

  • David

    It is not Christian to let all in, if that means Christian refugees are persecuted by Muslim refugees.

  • chiefofsinners

    Immigrants are indeed all God’s children. Which is why God opens His doors to everyone. His riches are limitless and in His house are many mansions. Unfortunately, we have a budget deficit and a housing crisis.

    • Hi

      Apparently you could fit the whole world population onto the isle of Wight….

      • Hi Hannah, glad to see you survived the High Holy Days too. A shana tova to you and yours!

        An interesting factoid! Question is, how much wiggle room would we have and what would happen if everyone peed at the same time.

        • dannybhoy

          It would turn into the Isle of Wet….

        • Hi Avi

          I think we’d be like sardines …..

        • chiefofsinners

          So you’ve been to the Isle of Wight Festival then?

          • Hmm. Had to google images to see what you mean. I don’t think we have this many people in the whole of Canada. The drug that would help me cope with such proximity to other bodies has yet to be invented.

          • chiefofsinners

            Aye, six hundred thousand people in 1970, the biggest rock festival ever. Next year A law was passed to stop it happening again, prohibiting gatherings of more than 5000, presumably on the basis that this was the maximum number that could be fed with the 5 loaves and 2 fish they had.

    • dannybhoy

      ” Unfortunately, we have a budget deficit and a housing crisis.”
      Huh! If you had any real compassion, you’d borrow the money. You’d increase the national debt and add to your children’s burden, just to show how warm and compassionate you are towards others in need.
      Oh, wait a minute…..!

      • chiefofsinners

        I love irony. It’s like brassy and bronzy, only made of iron.

        • dannybhoy

          Your sense of humour is greatly appreciated..

  • Bob Frost

    I really don’t understand why we are taking any refugees at all.

    Japan for example, under the same 1951 agreement, gave asylum to 11 in
    total of the 5000+ applicants last year. They have less than 2% of
    foreign nationals in their country, a higher GDP than us, the lowest
    crime rate of any industrialised society and somehow have enough home
    grown workers to man their hospitals, drive their public transport and
    pick their seasonal fruit and vegetables.

    What is this strange guilt trip that we seem to have embarked upon, when
    having been born in a fairly affluent and civilised society, we seem
    determined to change it all, by not only adding over 600000 immigrants a
    year but now also taking in some of the 6 million displaced people of
    the world, which looking at the scale of the problem will be about as
    much use as homeopathic medicine?

    Interestingly the State of Israel, which one might think post WW2 would
    have a liberal view to those in trouble, has only granted asylum to just
    over 200 people during its entire existence.

    This is why Israel is still a Jewish State and Japan is still wonderfully Japanese, and long may they continue to be so.

    • A minor dispute. Israel has granted adylum and citizenship to tens of thousands of non-Jews from Russia, Africa, Asia and Latin America who were related to by marriage or thought of and persecuted as Jews, in accordance with Israel’s Law of Return. This is why you will find newly established Eastern Orthodox and other churches there.

      • hi avi

        And Vietnamese boat people – there’s a nice Vietnamese restaurant in Tel Aviv – who were granted asylum by that bleeding heart liberal Menachem Begin….. in fact the European and Mizrahi who went to Israel after the war and up to 1950s were also refugees. And it wasn’t easy, as they initially lived in tents camps in the desert, whilst thru built their new homes there.

    • ceige

      And to be fair taking in economic immigrants is unlikely to have been because of a guilt trip, at some point, somebody British made a choice for some reason. Asylum seekers and refugees usually come under a different system in most countries.

      NZ took in a lot British immigrants after WWII as finding work and places to live then was difficult, including my Grandparents. We also took in a number of Polish refugees. There has never been a sense that either was out of guilt, compassion maybe.

      • John Moore.

        Australia and New Zealand wanting British migrants after 1945 was a quite different situation. They were offering special cheap passage (by sea then of course) and great help in getting settled. Both were commonwealth countries and their populations were from Britain originally and were seeking to increase their populations from the Home country.

        • ceige

          Hi John

          Different to the current refugee crisis in Europe definitely, except the Polish refugees we took in was purely for humanitarian reasons.

          But what about other British economic immigrants, it seems a very political topic there now. When, how and why did they originally enter the country? There must have been a political decision either (like what happens here sometimes) a need for certain types of labour or a points system? Or perhaps due to relationships – I know through my Grandfather I could get UK citizenship.

          One point of correction – the original population is NZ is Maori, and they were oppressed through wars and land grabbing, however, things have improved. We became a British colony largely because there was pressure put on Britain for them to control their rowdy sailors and also they were afraid France might act and we could become a French colony.

          Now on that note I hope you are about to watch the Rugby and are supporting the AB’s against France, : )

  • Dennis Lessenis

    The Elephant in the Room with regard to accepting migrants is that in doing so we’re also accepting a massive influx of alien cultures that are at odds with Western European values. Few are brave enough to ask why it is Jews, Hindus and Sikhs have come to the UK and many have become the haves of society – making a massive contribution to the UK. Whereas those from Muslim cultures are more likely to live on benefits, be in prison (Muslims make up 4.5% of the UK population (alas…) yet make up almost 15% of the prison population) and involved in violent crime, etc. Sure, the vast majority of Muslims are law abiding citizens, but we have to ask why they are so over-presented in our welfare and criminal justice system.

    Moreover, as has been in seen Germany and Sweden – a massive influx Muslim men, as also seen a massive increase in the number of sex crimes (see: ) – some 77% of all rapes in Sweden involve a Muslim man. This shouldn’t come as a surprise – many of the top ten nations in the world for porn internet downloading are Muslim societies – Pakistan leads the world in internet pornography downloading (curiously Poland is highest consumer in Europe and the Bible Belt States in the USA – see: which suggests the more publically conservatively religious a society the greater its consumption of pornography – now there’s irony, but not a surprise, when you think about it… ‘Do as I say, not as I do…’ and ‘Thou Shalt Not Get Found Out’ have always been major commandments in religious societies, no matter what the religion!!).

    It’s bad enough the whinging Lefties arse licking immigrants in Calais – yesterday I logged into my local council’s website only to find a header advertising UNISON’s self-congratulation for doing an ‘aid-run’ to the criminal migrants in Calais. Now Christians are joining in this ill-advised support of a mass influx of an alien culture.

    Let’s remember, ALL immigrants come to the UK and the West in general because they have been failed by their own culture. Their own culture has not been able to provide them with the life they desire, nor protect them when things go wrong. e.g. we don’t see some rich Muslim countries lifting a finger to help – Saudi Arabia, one of the richest countries in the world, has been able to erect a tent city for millions for the Hajj – yet it’s not taken one refugee from Syria – and let’s be honest here, the Syrians, as tragic as their circumstances, are not wanting to stay in Muslim countries – nor are Afghans, Pakistanis, Eretrians, Somalis, Nigerians (both Christian and Muslim), etc . Yet you can bet your bottom dollar many will come to Europe, like so many other Muslim immigrants, and set up a tinpot Muslim community in our inner cities and expect wider society to bend over backwards to accept them and their alien and oppressive cultures.

    WHY CAN EUROPE NOT SEE SENSE? Much of northern Europe began to turn its back on theocracy and the rule of religion at the time of the Enlightenment – and now, where we see the lowest levels of religious belief and practice in Europe (mainly the Scandinavian countries) we also see the best life chances for its peoples, lowest rates of crime, murder, teen pregnancy, marital break down etc. etc. Accepting an alien religious culture is just going to send Europe back to dark ages.

    Yes, we should help the immigrants by all means, by supporting decent camps – and by not sticking our nose in other nation’s business. Cameron is still wanting to oust Bashar al-Assad – has he learned nothing from Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya? Since the time of Mohammed, Muslims have had a habit of killing other Muslims (far more Muslims are killed by Muslims than attackers of any other religion) – just lets offer help at arms length – and even then, only to the most vulnerable. As for Christians wanting to get in on the act – this is just nonsense – and nothing good will come from it in the end.

  • av4tar

    ‘Immigrants are all God’s children’ – very poor theology (Ephesians 2:3). Made in God’s image, yes, but that also includes the terrorists who want to get into the country to harm us: we still need the wisdom of serpents.