Church of England bishop who preaches about allowing Syrian refugees into Britain... .

www.dailymail.co.uk...

This article shows beautifully the hypocrisy of the do-gooders in the UIK. We keep seeing these small groups of people asking for there to be open borders, asking for the illegal immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees to be let into the UK but whenever questioned about whether they have offered to put any up in their own homes there are no answers forthcoming. Even though it is against the majority of British people's wishes still they keep putting their opinions forward. All MP's said on the run up to the election the greatest concern of all voters was the uncontrolled immigration and yet they somehow seem to have forgotten this only 6 months later.

The same people who keep asking for more people to be let in are then the same people who are asking for an end to austerity measures. How do these people think we can carry on spending millions on benefits and public services and at the same time keep letting hundreds of thousands of people in. Do they not see at some point the infrastructure is going to break down.

The Bishop of Manchester claims "that it would be wrong for a refugee family to move into his own recently refurbished house because of the language barrier and their ‘alien culture" so if he can see these things when it comes to his own household why can't he see that this is going to be the problem on a greater scale throughout the Country when looking at thousands entering the Country.

As the Bishop of Manchester I find it disgraceful that he hasn't offered his vicarage to the thousands of vulnerable homeless people on the streets of Manchester. The word charity begins at home obviously doesn't resonate with him.!

a reply to: anxiouswens

Do they not see at some point the infrastructure is going to break down.

Isn't that the idea? In order to force a "world without borders", you must force immigration, and force the collapse of the present infrastructure. Which in turn creates the need to build a new one.

a reply to: anxiouswens

I think that senior Christian figures, such as Bishops, are driven more by compassion and charity. Politicians should deal with the policy.

Before this becomes a religion-bashing thread, it is worthwhile to point out that the churches (e.g. Church of England) do a hell of a lot of work for the poor and needy, such providing last stop facilities. They don't stuff religion down people's throats either. They do it because it's the Christian thing to do.

a reply to: Klassified
I hadn't considered the infrastructure calasp. However I think you're spot on with regards to a world without borders. I don't think the concept is bad on its surface, the steps that's being to get there are absolutely deplorable.

If no one is living where they're from, if the entire world becomes a mixing pot then borders would be superfluous. I just think it would have happened naturally given time. This devastation and chaos is just selfish agenda pushing.

To be frank there are too many people that aren't ready to consider everyone as equals to themselves. Maybe that's cultural, I honestly don't think so. I just considered this to be how people that aren't as exposed to other ways of life are until they learn better.

AND, I do believe that due to the ancient historical value of the middle east that something is being looked for or specific land is desired. ( and I don't mean Israel)

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: anxiouswens

Do they not see at some point the infrastructure is going to break down.

Isn't that the idea? In order to force a "world without borders", you must force immigration, and force the collapse of the present infrastructure. Which in turn creates the need to build a new one.

At this point shouldn't we all want that? It's a little to late to fix what a handful have destroyed.

The only question should be who builds the new matrix? I say it belongs to "We the People", all people.

a reply to: Isurrender73
That sounds lovely.

Until you realize that most of "us" can't communicate with " them".

How many languages do you speak? I speak one well of you ignore my blatant grammar errors. And that's including the French and Spanish I took in h.s.

As a woman that was brought up to be a " strong black woman" in the U.S. I am Damn certain I would offend most males in other parts of the world.

That means the first step for success isn't even close to happening. Learning takes time that should have been started already before this mass exodus. I also don't think that was overlooked either.

I'd be as weary of any individual high up within religious institutions, as I would with regards high ranking politicians.

I've heard no intelligent argument for mass-immigration, only simple emotional pleas that in my opinion seem to be largely based upon a desired image. Nobody in favour seems keen to say how many people should or could be taken in, simply that it should be many and more.

Europe cannot absorb thirty million people in order to use it's welfare systems as an aid programme with the current state of widespread austerity and unemployment - it will just create far more suffering.

Just wondering how people are planning to stop immigration. A process that has being going on for thousands of years. en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Iamthatbish

I hadn't considered the infrastructure calasp. However I think you're spot on with regards to a world without borders. I don't think the concept is bad on its surface, the steps that's being to get there are absolutely deplorable.

And therein lies the issue. Those who are powerful enough to push a world without borders, want it on their own terms. They want to control the concept, and it's culmination.

If no one is living where they're from, if the entire world becomes a mixing pot then borders would be superfluous. I just think it would have happened naturally given time. This devastation and chaos is just selfish agenda pushing.

Our natural inclination as a species is tribal. We segregate ourselves, and scrutinize outsiders. You can see that right here on ATS. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean we reject outsiders. It just means outsiders are "vetted", for lack of a better word, before being welcomed with open arms. In that sense, I agree, most of us wouldn't have such a problem with the no borders idea, within reason.

To be frank there are too many people that aren't ready to consider everyone as equals to themselves. Maybe that's cultural, I honestly don't think so. I just considered this to be how people that aren't as exposed to other ways of life are until they learn better.

Bingo! And we see it every day on the news. Cultural, religious, political, it's all the same in some ways. We may, or may not "learn better" from exposure. To use an extreme example. I doubt seriously a nomadic tribe of cannibals would be welcome to settle any where in the U.S. But a world without borders could conceivably make it a reality. This is why many are opposed to one world. They don't want laws and culture change that would be inevitable in such an event.

AND, I do believe that due to the ancient historical value of the middle east that something is being looked for or specific land is desired. ( and I don't mean Israel)

Agreed. The ME is important to those in power. It always has been.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: anxiouswens

Do they not see at some point the infrastructure is going to break down.

Isn't that the idea? In order to force a "world without borders", you must force immigration, and force the collapse of the present infrastructure. Which in turn creates the need to build a new one.

At this point shouldn't we all want that? It's a little to late to fix what a handful have destroyed.

The only question should be who builds the new matrix? I say it belongs to "We the People", all people.

See my post to Iamthatbish. Just my present random thoughts on the matter.

a reply to: anxiouswens

The word charity begins at home obviously doesn't resonate with him.!

But..but..but...they aren't like him and anyway, his large house is only big enough for him and his head.

I was in york yesterday and I was watching outside after their sunday service and I saw loads of people in their sunday best walk right past a homeless dude and then one of them had a chat to a copper and he moved the guy on.
I gave him a fiver...but I was gobsmacked and made sure others knew my disgust.

a reply to: woodwardjnr
I'm not sure that anybody suggested that they would. We're talking about a current issue, not about the history of a definition.

a reply to: Klassified

I agree with you. That's why the people need to create the Matrix.

We are not ready for a world without borders.

But a global constitution, a single currency and a global minimum wage within the context of national sovereignty is possible IMO.

Imagine the American constitution with state sovereignty, only on a global scale.

a reply to: anxiouswens

Hehehe, well if they were refusing food and water fresh off the trains because of the red cross on the boxes, then why not simply tell them all they many enter but must reside in Christian homes or go back?

a reply to: Robert Reynolds it will always be a current issue, if we look at history. I can't see peace and stability in the Middle East being achieved in my lifetime either.

a reply to: boymonkey74I can believe it. Its all pretence. Most of these people wouldn't do anything to help anyone where it directly affected their families, home or lives. A lot of the do-gooders are usually the people who live a million miles away from where there are many problems with immigration such as Oldham which is just 4 miles from where I live. There are no go areas there. There is a beautiful park that I haven't been fortunate enough to take my child to because friends of mine have warned me against it after they took their children and were told to leave by the community as it is their park.

A lot of these people who go to church do it because it makes them feel good about themselves, same reason why they hold their hands out welcoming unless it directly affects them and soon their arms aren't outstretched anymore. I do believe in God but have never gone to Church since being a lot younger because I used to see people week in week out who were far from Christian in their everyday lives. I would rather have my belief in private where there is just God and me. I don't feel the need to put on a show.

a reply to: anxiouswens

Good call, and F&S. I also will NOT say Guardian or it likely
isn't so.
As a yank with no bowser in the brawl, we can call some of
this directly relative to the Cloward-THATCHER strategy: to
keep pumping meat from everywhere into the welfare system
until every one of us is reduced to cheap ill-fitting print dresses.

And BTW I look hideous in a purple floral, much less a rosy paisley.
It's bad enough a profile in a wooly pullie over a Guinness girth.
Your Grace, there needs to be a line drawn where beyond kings
and priests politely do not tread. You stomped past it in uniform.
EDIT:: Consequently do not be suprised nor offended when the
press treats you as a politician instead of a man of the cloth. ::EDIT

a reply to: anxiouswens

Should be used to it by now. Pope preaches the same. But apparently Vatican city has the toughest immigration laws anywhere.

a reply to: woodwardjnr
I'm not sure what your point is. Migration has always happened and I dare say it's caused many a problem too.

Painting in such broad strokes will do a disservice to the specific cases.