27 3 mins 13 yrs

Three cheers for Dr John Sentamu, The Archbishop of York, who declares that migrants to Britain in the past five decades have been treated like hotel guests who ‘do not belong’, the Archbishop of York said yesterday.

Dr John Sentamu said the failure of migrants to integrate had contributed to the collapse of a common British culture and the lack of a national sense of direction. He called for recognition of the Christian heritage which used to bind the nation together and for a revival of the civic values once represented by myriad local clubs, churches and trade unions. The Archbishop’s powerful attack on uncontrolled immigration and on the Left-wing interpretation of multiculturalism that encourages migrants to ignore traditional British values, was made in a speech to Gordon Brown’s think tank, the Smith Institute.

He makes several key points. It has been the refusal of certain types of immigrant to INTEGRATE into British culture that has been a running sore. It has been the refusal of this Labour government to tackle the issue that has contributed to this, combined with the destruction of the work ethic and its replacement with the Welfare fix. (Hello Somalis!) Dr Sentamu raises some fundamental truths, the question now is, what do we do about this massive imported problem?

No easy answer. The uninvited guests are here and not planning to leave. Some refuse to have anything to do with our British values and in this regard they are assisted by Dr Sentamu’s boss, Druid Williams, who thinks Sharia Law is “inevitable”. We need to cut off Welfare dependency, we need to enforce our national borders, we need to decide who WE want in OUR land. That is both reasonable and rational. But we also need political leaders who have the same courage and conviction as Dr Sentamu. Where are they to be found?

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

27 thoughts on “THEY DO NOT BELONG…

  1. Dr John Sentamu said the failure of migrants to integrate had contributed to the collapse of a common British culture and the lack of a national sense of direction. He called for recognition of the Christian heritage which used to bind the nation together and for a revival of the civic values once represented by myriad local clubs, churches and trade unions.

    There’s a man who understands his country. Wise words.

  2. Britain’s Christian heritage helped bind the nation together?

    Haha really? Pete, if King Henry did not have marriage troubles, you and i would probably be citizens (or subjects) of the same country!

    In fact, were the people of the North Atlantic Archipelago Muslims or Hindus, Britain would have historically been much more united.

    This man has less understanding of his country than your average 14 year old.

  3. Guba,

    If that be the case, based on your comment, that gives you the understanding of your average 7 year old.

  4. So the religious wars of Britain and Ireland’s history are a figment of my imagination.

    The Battle of the Boyne is some old yarn spun by a bunch of senir citizens from the north?

    The 1798 rebellion, too- silly me- had nothing whatsoever to do with our Christian heritage.

    Cromwell and his pitch-cappers were just secular humanists with no interest in the papists?

    Britain has never had a civil war of any description due to religion?

    Your views on history certainly are radical and original, i will give you that.

  5. The historic wars between Protestants and Catholics will seem like a family squabble once the Third Jihad gets underway. Prepare for Islamageddon!

  6. Guba

    You’re not wrong, but those days have completely faded, and what remains today, are just sad tribal remnants of tribal beefs along the periphery. The Catholics and the Protestants alike have sold their heritage for a bag of crisps and a Ryanair flight to Spain.

    What you face now is something far more sullen, hostile and unassimilable than you’ve faced before. Compare to past beefs at your own peril. This is a very different thing.

  7. Phanthom: I agree that they are in the past. I was just pointing out the ignorance that the Bish has of christian history in Britain and Ireland.

    I think to compare the threat posed by Islamism to the Christian wars of the past is wrong. I think that it plays down the horror and devastation caused by Christianity in our past.

    I would say it is like someone saying, ‘Islamism is more dangerous and hostile than nazism was in the 1940’s.’

    Al Gore says how i believe wonderfully in this short clip (sorry i don’t know how to embed!):

  8. Islam now is not more dangerous than the Nazis in 1940. But radical Islam may very well be more dangerous than then Nazis were in 1935.

  9. Well ‘may’ is the important thing there. Scientology may be more dangerous than both of them.

    Germany was the most powerful country in the world in the 1930’s/40’s, with an army and technology far in excess of others. It was also, of course, a united state with all that that endows.

    To say that radical Islam is as dangerous as, even Hitler in his early days, is i think a gross exaggeration and, to be honest, fear-mongering.

  10. Its more dangerous in that radical Islam exists in far flung regions of the world and is far more difficult to destroy than Naziism was.

    And when any effort is made – Afghanistan, Gaza – look at the howling about it, from otherwise sensible and reasonable people

  11. Guba –

    You don’t half come out with some old tosh.

    You’re either insane or a muslim bullshitter, possibly both.

  12. GUBA – it isn’t fear mongering for those thousands have died at the hands of radical Islamists, or those living under their threat. The New York Times today had a front page article on girls splashed with acid by radical Islamists who do not wish them to be able to attend school.

  13. Well, Phanthom we will have to disagree there. I simply do not agree that radical Islam is as dangerous as Nazism was. It is a threat, of course it is, but it should not be exaggerated.

    Phanthom, we disagree with Gaza and Iraq, because we feel that it is strengthening radical Islam and certainly not defeating it. To be frank, i cannot understand how anyone can see otherwise, but, then again, that is the mystery of politics.

    Pete: I do not rate your understanding of the Gaza situation or radical Islam either. Your understanding of the issues seems to be lightweight and you do not appear to have the capacity to look at these matters in an objective and rational manner.

    Your retreat to insults and sloganeering is a further indication of your unfortunate inability to comprehend these problems.

    Mahons: i am not saying that Islamism is not a threat. i am saying that it is not as grave as many pretend it to be. It could be dealt with much more effectively if a more bi-partisan and peaceful approach is taken.

  14. To Osama Bin Laden? None, frankly i am puzzled why the Americans did not persevere in Afghanistan until he was found. An elemental error.

    Islamism is an idea, a disease, it is not a country or jurisdiction. Like any idea, you stop it by targeting the infection itself. You may mask the symptoms all you want – deaden your pain with paracetamol all you want – but this will not target the infection, the root cause. Focusing on lessening the symptoms may be dangerous if you ignore the infection itself.

    Islamism will be defeated through ideas; by nothing more. These wars on terror may, momentarily, make it appear that the infection is gone, but it is superficial. Sooner or later, we will have to begin the real war on terror.

  15. GUBA -we haven’t left Afghanistan yet, though I agree as a focus it should have been kept on him.

    I don’t believe Islam is a disease, but radical Islam is certainly a clear and present danger.

    And sometimes war is the answer, although it is not the only option, or the exclusive one.

  16. Mahons:

    Well, i mean a disease, as in it acts like a disease or a virus, but i believe it is a disease in the negative sense also, as is Christianity and Hinduism.

    One can only defeat radicalism with ideas. Fleming found that the best way to tackle bacteria was with bacteria. War cannot be the answer in defeating an idea. By definition it cannot.

    It is people that control missiles and guns. It is ideas that control people. Ideas cannot be changed by force.

  17. I thought Fleming found the best way to control things was by sending James Bond.

    Ideas can indeed be changed by force, ex. the fascists ideas of Japan and Germany during the Second World War.

    Lastly, the poor Hindoos don’t even have a dog in the fight in the Middle East. They’ll be very upset with you. But I figured you for one of our militant atheists.

  18. I would disagree, you cannot point a gun at someone and say belief this. You will change beliefs only through your own thinking.Thinking is a process that deals exclusively with beliefs.

    The Hindus’ treatment of Christians has been less than admirable recently. It is a disease like all the rest.

    You are correct, i am a militant atheist. I have to be. Religion has begun the offensive, one has to defend rationality. It can be lost.

  19. –I would disagree, you cannot point a gun at someone and say belief this.–

    You sure as hell can, in practical terms. That’s very largely how Islam was spread – by the sword. You get the parents to comply, and the children are brought up in the faith, and presto violence has resulted in believers.

    Somewhat the same deal with totalitarian communism, which was a religion too.

    You can’t force a person, but you can force a population.

  20. Not just islam: in 1945, the populations of Japan and Germany were forced to change their beliefs at the point of many guns.

Comments are closed.