Lord Carey, a former Archbishop of Canterbury cautions against Islamic immigration policy in Britain. He does not want his country to be inhospitable, but he does want a friendly attitude toward the country’s democratic values.
Carey’s position is in direct opposition to the sitting Archbishop of Canterbury, who had the inconvenient thought, that perhaps the country should have some Sharia Law. Overnight, he was cut down to size, because his own church was having none of that, and while some in Parliament thought it might be okay, the huge majority was appalled.
It is striking that this has come out at this time. A new US intelligence report says that with Britain’s heavily Muslim population, with a heavily extremist attitude, the country has become a threat to US national security. Afterall, Britain is just a short sprint across the pond – just a stepping stone away from the country that Islam wants to conqueur and dominate more than any other – the United States of America.
Lord Cary, in a Times of London op-ed on January 7th, strangely said “while we don’t expect groups to assimilate,” we must expect some willingness to integrate. Before getting to his support of controlling Muslim immigration, I’ll offer my opinion that we should expect immigrants to assimilate. Why else do they come? They bring their children, but do not want them to partake in the American dream? Why…because you want the American dream to be the Koranic dream. It’s dangerous not to expect Muslims to integrate, but it is ignorant to think that they will.
But then, Lord Carey pointed out that groups of migrants in England are ambivalent about “the monarchy, Parliament, the judiciary, the church of England, and a free press:”
Carey lamented that “some groups of migrants” are
“ambivalent about or even hostile to such institutions” because they
embody the Britain’s “liberal democratic values.” He specifically
exampled a proposed antiwar Islamist march as evidence of the dangers
that “extremists pose to British society.”…
The antiwar march mentioned above was not allowed to happen, but an
early march did go forward and British troops returning from Iraq were
protested during a welcome home march. If you’ve seen that video, you
know how disgraceful these protesters were, and why the British people
were furious about their Muslim
brothers interlopers, who so disdain the West.
More from Lord Carey:
“It is my firm view that our society owes more to our
Christian heritage than it realizes and to overlook this inheritance of
faith will lead to the watering down of the very values of tolerance,
openness, inclusion and democracy that we claim are central to all we
stand for,” Carey warned.
In his radio interview, he rejected any
specific immigration policy against “non-Christian populations,”
which would violate Britain’s “generous spirit.” But he did urge
immigration policies that favored immigrants who affirm British
The following commentary is from Mark Tooley, the president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy published in FrontPageMagazine:
As in America, where left-leaning religious elites
deride any concerns about immigration as xenophobic, Carey has been
widely lambasted in Britain. And he stands virtually alone as a senior
churchman public urging more careful immigration, with an eye to
Islam’s potentially dangerous growth.
In a recent BBC radio broadcast, Carey shared his
desire for a “country that values its Christian heritage and democratic
standards and all that this country has fought over.” He also asserted
that Britain needs a “tougher church” as “Christians are so very often
so soft” and “allow other people to walk over us” because “we don’t
want to upset other people.”
Britain’s retired senior archbishop
declared Christians must be “more outspoken.” The Christian and
Jewish idea to ‘welcome the stranger” must be affirmed, Carey said.
But uncontrolled immigration could allow Britain to be “destabilized”
and the creation of “ghettoes.”
I watched Judge Andrew Napolitano’s series of five videos today, on the Constitution and Freedom. The Judge focused on the executive branch’s responsibility to keep America free – not safe, but free. Mark Tooley ended his article with these words, and when he says “safeguard society,” I believe he is speaking of freedom:
Traditional Religious Left voices simplistically distill immigration
law as simply a question of “hospitality.” Lord Carey, with more
nuance than his ostensibly more sophisticated critics, seems to
understand civil law’s supreme obligation to safeguard society.