Is there hope for the C. of E. after all? John Derbyshire notices this op-ed wherein George Carey, retired Archbishop of Canterbury, calls, oh so cautiously, for limits on the influx of muslim immigrants into England:
"Last year nearly a million votes were cast for the British National Party. We cannot ignore the fact that such far-right groups exploit genuine concerns about both overpopulation and the ability of this nation to integrate new communities whose values are sometimes very different, even antithetical, to our own.
"In Dagenham, where I was brought up, there is a very real danger that a white working-class electorate, alienated by far-reaching social change and largely ignored by the mainstream parties, could vote for a BNP Member of Parliament...we play into the hands of the far Right if we do not seriously address [these] concerns..."
Well, indeed.
He continues:
The sheer numbers [Enoch Powell, please call your office] of migrants from within Europe and elsewhere put the resources of Britain under enormous pressure but also threaten the very ethos or DNA of our nation [emphasis added].
"Democratic institutions such as the monarchy [?], Parliament, the judiciary, the Church of England, our free press and the BBC...support the liberal democratic values of the nation. Some groups of migrants, however, are ambivalent about or even hostile to such institutions...
"...the idea that Britain can continue to welcome with open arms immigrants who immediately establish their own tribunals to apply Sharia, rather than make use of British civil law, is deeply socially divisive...
"...what I am saying is that those who seek to live in this country recognise that they are coming to a country with a Christian heritage and an established Church. Just as we should expect immigrants to subscribe to democratic principles, abide by our laws, speak English, support freedom of speech and a free press, so they should also respect the Christian nature and history of our nation with its broad, hospitable Establishment."
* * *
At which point Derbyshire quite rightly invokes Dr. Johnson: "It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."
Comments (8)
"...what I am saying is that those who seek to live in this country recognise that they are coming to a country with a Christian heritage and an established Church. Just as we should expect immigrants to subscribe to democratic principles, abide by our laws, speak English, support freedom of speech and a free press, so they should also respect the Christian nature and history of our nation with its broad, hospitable Establishment."
As always with statements of this kind, one is moved to ask, "Or what?"
Posted by Sage | January 8, 2010 4:10 PM
To which one inevitably responds, "Expulsion or the block."
Posted by vanderleun | January 8, 2010 4:57 PM
Sage,
The correct answer to your question should be "...or they will not be allowed in our country and/or we will take measures to remove them from our country as they live here not as some sort of human right of all men, but at the mercy of our hospitality."
Posted by Jeff Singer | January 8, 2010 5:49 PM
"Democratic institutions such as the monarchy [?], Parliament, the judiciary, the Church of England"
There is no hope for the C of E so long as its leaders (including the former ABC) can say with apparent seriousness that it is a democratic institution to be included in a list of such with Parliament and the judiciary.
Lord Help us!
Kamilla
Posted by Kamilla | January 8, 2010 7:57 PM
Jeff Singer, Amen. But the truth is, people _do_ consider living in the West to be a right, _at least_ a prima facie right, and one which is defeasible only with great difficulty. As in, _maybe_ if you commit a serious crime you can be deported, and _maybe_ if you announce your intention of committing a serious crime you won't be allowed in, but maybe we won't deport you anyway, and maybe we will allow you in anyway. And nothing short of these (including known jihadist associations and connections) can be considered even remotely relevant.
Posted by Lydia | January 8, 2010 8:16 PM
Jeff (and vanderleun),
Agreed.
Posted by Sage | January 9, 2010 9:16 AM
I just wished that by law the immigrants were allowed to live in communities right alongside the leftists who want them so badly, not near the working classes who didn't vote to let them in. The Cardinal might not love the Muslims so much if they were in the houses that surrounded his own. As they are shuffled off in parts of town he never visits, he is not physically intimidated by them, and his kids aren't harrassed by them.
This is how it is with illegal hispanics in America. The wealthy who want them here, and the cultural leftist-bohemians who lecture us about them, dont interact with them much at all, unless its in a gardener/dishwasher/ethnic resturaunt waiter capacity.
Gated communities were a bad idea, they let the rich exclude themselves from any side effects they impose on civilization economically and socially. Its psuedo-feudalism.
Posted by miles | January 9, 2010 1:00 PM
Gated communities are now available to the middle class as well, though your point still stands.
Posted by Mike T | January 11, 2010 8:13 AM