OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT FIGURES show that over the next four years £2 billion will be spent on those 20,000 migrants that call-me-Dave has agreed to allow into the UK. When it comes to even remedial maths, my brain reacts like an early 1990s vintage computer struggling to boot up. But thankfully Daniel Johnson, writing in today's Daily Mail has already worked out the yearly cost to be paid by the taxpayer to each individual migrant per year, and computes the amount at £24,000.
Liberal idealism acts as if money is harvested, whenever needed, from trees. As liberals, they have this self-perceived virtuousness that government has as if it were a law of nature, the unarguable right to gather whatever amount of tax from the citizens they need to fulfil any requirement relating to their consciences. Eighty bishops of the Church of England compiled a finger-waving correspondence to the prime minister, suggesting the taxpayer's largesse on this issue should be put to the expense of providing money for not twenty but 50,000 migrants.
These bishops live comfortably enough in their little palaces compared to the norm within society (or even among the priesthood). They are especially gifted within wealthy rural dioceses, where the pastoral setting allows their various parsonages, if this is the right word, to flourish in comparative splendour compared to the citizens living even in the wealthiest of the church's diocese. Bishops live like (and are indeed) Lords and, therefore, no fear of any amount of migration from whatever quarter of the world it emanates will cause them any domestic discomfort.
There are 250 Anglican bishops in the Church of England: and less than a third of them signed this rebuke to the prime minister. Yet the media has chosen to promote the 80 who pointed their fingers at Downing Street. I would like to know from which diocese did the insipid eighty emerge. Was their diocese rural? In which case they will not be visited by the migrant influx: It will be left to urban areas to soak up these migrants: and the people of these areas will have to live with the pressure their presence puts upon our social fabric locally.
These 80 bishops cannot be ignorant of the fact of the social pressure that the addition of seven million entrants to the UK under the Schengen agreement has already subjected our NHS, education, and welfare bill to in a time when the country's deficit remains morbidly obese. All of these services have already paid a heavy price because of Schengen – now we are expected to trump such political liberal utopianism by adding to its naivety, the addition of 50,000 Syrians.
One hundred and seventy bishops refused to put their signature to the, I would like to say letter; but its length stretched to a document, such was the depth of the 80 bishops anger; but it was used by the media, particularly to parts of the printed liberal variant, to showboat in print the 80 bishops as if they were in some way a significant representation of the whole order of Anglican bishops – they were not.
There are probably many reasons why the 170 did not become signatories to the document: but I think that they all disagreed with the Anglican 80 – and rightly so: and should be applauded for such a stance. The 80 bishops represent the level of the liberal intrusion into the Anglican Church. Over the coming years (I hope it is years and not months), I have little doubt that the whole of the Anglican Bishopric will succumb to the enticement of liberal secularism, and prostrate themselves before its liberal 'progressiveness' irrespective of biblical teaching and biblical morality. Under such a regime, Christianity will lose out to secularism whose great secular pontiff is of course Richard Dawkins.
MASS MIGRATION comes at a great cost to society, as the Anglican 80 must know, but chose to ignore the social impact on the community they represent. Part (a very important part) of Christian teaching is personal sacrifice. When a Christian stands up for a cause; a cause that may demand some personal sacrifice, the Christian individual bears the sacrifice willingly because their faith gives him the strength to do so however painful the burden asked of them by their faith.
I was not, or did not mean to be flippant when I eluded to the spacious surroundings the Anglican 80 find themselves in occupation of up and down the country in both rural and urban diocese. They have space a plenty in their particular inn to accommodate several families. However did the above-mentioned correspondence to the prime minister cite any kind of self-sacrifice they were themselves prepared to make? Thus setting an example to their flock, and by doing so make the message of Christianity relevant in an increasingly secularist society.
Those 50,000 refugees[1] these bishops are eager, out of Christian and humane impulses, to welcome to our shore, should come at a price to themselves personally. They should be prepared to take in sufficient of these people into their own homes to fill every room – but sadly it appears that there is no room at these particular inns.
I do not attend Church, and I am not a Christian, but I do know, according to his teaching; Christ would have wanted these bishops to do the right thing before asking the community to make sacrifices – he would have wanted his bishops to set an example.
[1] I use the term refugee instead of migrant because Cameron intends removing those 20,000 at source, among the refugee camps in Jordan and the Lebanon, thus making the UK their first port of call – which is the qualification for refugee status.
No comments:
Post a Comment