“Europe needs more inward migration, even though we don’t think we do – we’re an ageing, and shrinking, population. Somehow, peace will return to Syria, and it will be a just peace. Isis will, in the end, collapse. Europe will learn to welcome its refugees, and the land will be tilled again, and crops will grow, and the hungry will be fed and the poor will be lifted up.” So blogged London-based Canon Giles Goddard (http://stjohnswaterloo.org/blog/6974) an Anglican vicar critical of the conservative Evangelical wing of the Church of England.
And again (http://stjohnswaterloo.org/blog/1541) ‘Yesterday I was in France, and came back through the Eurotunnel terminal from Calais… I was shocked … by how different the terminal is from when I was last there a year ago. High fences topped with barbed wire are now all round the site, and it feels as if you are entering a fortress when you drive through to board the train… I remind you that we are making a collection for those in Calais this Sunday: Tricia says "we are asking specifically for men’s things: jeans, jumpers, training shoes, Bibles, games (scrabble, chess), toiletries etc., but I am sure a few women’s and children’s things wouldn’t go amiss" so do bring anything you have to church.’
This is the same well-meaning but naïve clergyman who earlier in the year that’s just ended caused uproar in the Church of England by contravening canon law with a full Muslim prayer service (an idiosyncratic, unrepresentative one at that: http://anglicanmainstream.org/inclusive-mosque-meets-to-pray-in-waterloo-church/ ) in his church and during proceedings asked his congregation to praise “the God that we love, Allah”. His pronouncements regarding the “refugees” ignore what is effectively an Islamic invasion of the European continent and a menace to Judeo-Christian values, and he appears to disregard the fact that according to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees an “asylum seeker” should apply for sanctuary in the first “safe country” he/she arrives in; manifestly, the hordes of mainly young males milling around Calais attempting to smuggle themselves into Britain have not complied with that expectation. The fact that they are young and male, with all that implies for the demographic future of Europe should ring alarm bells. As for those Bibles so earnestly solicited, I’d hazard a guess that there are unlikely to be many grateful takers.
In his admirably lucid and much-recommended book The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom, the Australian scholar of Islam Dr Mark Durie, himself an Anglican clergyman, notes that “Classical Islamic law did not allow non-Muslims who lived in an Islamic state to gain a deep understanding of Islam … Today there can be considerable pressure upon non-Muslims not to investigate the primary sources of Islam for themselves, but to refer all their questions about Islam to a Muslim expert. Interfaith dialogue is an increasingly important forum for exploring Islam in Western countries, and these forums tend to follow principles of mutual respect, listening attentively to the other party and accepting their interpretations of their own faith. While this is a common-sense approach to sustaining productive and mutually satisfying relationships between people, it does however tend to have the same impact as traditional Sharia restrictions, inhibiting non-Muslims from studying about [sic] Islam for themselves … One very good reason why Christians should study Islam for themselves is that Islam defines its spiritual identity, not merely in terms of Muslims’ standing before Allah, but in opposition and contrast to Jews and Christians. This self-definition includes a deep rejection of Christianity and Judaism. It is a sad fact that incitement against non-Muslims, and specifically followers of Biblical faiths, is an integral part of Islam, being hard-wired into the Quran and Sunna.”
Such knowledge would empower non-Muslim congregations when listening to addresses like this at Canon Goddard’s church (http://stjohnswaterloo.org/blog/1516) and this ill-conceived fiasco (http://jewsdownunder.com/2014/06/21/melbourne-jewish-temples-interfaith-deception/) at Australia’s largest Progressive Jewish synagogue, for example.
Back to the “refugee” issue. It might be natural for Jews, mindful of their own tragic history, to side with people fleeing persecution. As a perusal of the Jewish Chronicle shows, among the British Jews vocally championing the argument that Britain should strive strenuously to accommodate those displaced by the current upheaval in the Middle East are Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis and Sir Mick Davis, who heads the (unelected) Jewish Leadership Council. But for every genuine refugee family there are single males, mainly young ones, trying to take advantage of porous borders for their own ends.
An article every bit as naïve as Canon Goddard’s, and disturbingly tendentious, appeared a few months ago in Britain’s odious Israel-baiting Guardian newspaper (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/13/jewish-people-calais-migrants-kindertransport-children-nazis). Its author, Rabbi Laura Janner Klausner, daughter of a Labour life peer, did not speak for all Jews, though she gave the impression she did: ‘For the Jewish people, for thousands of years a dispersed nation without guaranteed safety, the sight of the Calais “jungle” camp on our doorstep is especially painful. We remember with gratitude the great deeds of the Kindertransport, and with hurt the rejection we have also known. What is the Jewish response to hearing that thousands are living in squalor just a few miles away? When we look across the English Channel, we see ourselves.’
No, Laura, not so; rather, some of us know a ruse and a threat when we see one. The present situation at Calais, where young economic migrants determined to get to Britain cluster and try to hide aboard cross-Channel transport, is not analogous to the plight of Jews desperate to escape the Reich. Nor will there be any supportable analogy between them and those refugees if and when they manage to penetrate Britain’s coasts. We align ourselves with the welfare of the British Isles.
As Daniel Greenfield observes (http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261127/lefts-muslim-replacement-theology-jews-daniel-greenfield) there’s grave danger in too nice a naïveté:
"Muslims are the new Jews. You can find this offensive claim repeated everywhere in the media. The Jews, a small ethnic minority of millions that was stateless for thousands of years, are a terrible analogy for a global Muslim population of 1.6 billion and around 50 countries that do not comprise a single ethnicity or race… The only thing the Muslims and the Jews have ever had in common is that the former conquered, persecuted and enslaved the latter. Any religious similarities are the product of Muslim cultural appropriation of Jewish beliefs and any cultural similarities are the result of Muslim colonization... In this twisted historical revisionism, the Jews, a beleaguered minority hanging on to a country slightly bigger than Fiji, who have spent the last 40 years cutting pieces off their small slice of the world to hand over to the region’s massive Muslim majority in the hopes of being left alone, are the new Nazis... The constant claims that Muslims are the new Jews carry with them a whiff of progressive replacement theology. The old Jews have been found wanting. Setting up a country and defending it against Muslim terrorism made them bad victims. The Muslims are superior replacement victims. They have the right to Israel and to Jewish history...."
Naïve well-meaning Jews, and Christians, would do well to heed his words.