The Boat People of Bethlehem

mary joseph jesusYou may have noticed the recent propaganda in support of the West absorbing unlimited numbers of Muslim refugees. It starts with the Bible and with Matthew 2:13-23 were it is told that Joseph, Mary and their children escaped to Egypt from Bethlehem in Judaea for fear of King Herod. Only when the King was dead did they return to Israel; settling in Nazareth rather than Bethlehem, because they remained wary of Herod’s son who ruled in Judaea.

Thus, so the story goes, Jesus was for a time a time a refugee in Egypt. A tenuous and tendentious leap of logic follows: if Jesus was indeed a refugee how can anyone in good conscience not welcome all refugees with open arms and generous hearts.

As an example, here is Martin O’Malley – the ex-governor of Maryland and short-lived competitor with Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president – talking with Fox News front man Tucker Carlson. “Remember Jesus too was a refugee child. What would you do if he came to your border?”

I liked Carlson’s reply: “That’s so stupid, it’s hard to respond.”

It’s monumentally stupid. Or, alternatively, is it part of a duplicitous plan to undo our civilisation and culture? Christianity being used to destroy Christendom. The devil quoting scripture for his purpose. But that can’t be right when the Archbishop of Canterbury is on board. Can it?

Here is an extract from Justin Welby’s Christmas sermon preached at Canterbury Cathedral on December 25.

Yet after the moments of miracles life goes on almost as before – the shepherds return to their sheep, Joseph settles back as a carpenter, Mary raises children. They flee as refugees, like over 60 million people today.

Get the point? Joseph, Mary and Jesus are just like tens of millions of Mussulmen from, say, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, or Somalia. The fact that the latter follow a poisonous creed which denies the divinity of Christ; who follow a false prophet as prophesised by Christ; and who have allegiance to a god who instructs them to disdain and kill infidels, is all by the way to the Archbishop apparently.

But let’s be practical as well as spiritual. Germans, Belgians, Swedes, Italians, the French, the British, Americans and Australians, and other Westerners, face heavy costs of providing accommodation, health, welfare, education and policing in trying to absorb millions of refugees. And that is the least of it. Their very culture and values are at stake. Their safety is at stake through additional crime and, of course, through Islamic terrorism.

In Cologne, for example, separate train carriages have been set aside for women and young children. Nothing of course to do with asylum-seekers assaulting women. God forbid the authorities would ever concede that. And, yes, don’t you know, Melbourne pedestrians allegedly were mowed down by a drug-addled madman who just happened, coincidently, to be an Afghan refugee expressing grievance at the world-wide treatment of Muslims. Obviously, we are being taken for saps by the powers that be and by Christian church leaders

Personally, as an Anglican, I find it difficult to accept the free-thinking that now appears to characterise the utterances of Archbishops of Canterbury. I suspect that Thomas Cranmer would feel the same way.

Welby was widely reported as admitting to feelings of doubt about the presence of God in 2015 after the November Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris which killed 130 people. What a complete wally is this Welby. If he needs reason to doubt why not look to Russian and German causalities on the WWII Eastern Front, the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide? For that matter, tragedies happen each and every day to feed clergymen prone to doubt.  Maybe Welby is taking a cue from his immediate predecessors.

In 2008 Rowan Williams envisaged the parallel introduction of sharia law in the UK, before smartly back-tracking, while pretending he had been misunderstood. In turn, his predecessor George Carey, in a millennium message in 1999, expressed the view “that while we can be absolutely sure that Jesus lived and that he was certainly crucified on the Cross, we cannot with the same certainty say that we know He was raised by God from the dead.” Truth is stranger than fiction when one symbolic head of the world-wide Christian community accedes to the imposition of Allah’s law and another casts doubt on the essential element of the Christian faith.

Is it any wonder then that the current Archbishop of Canterbury is so divorced both from his scripture and from practical reality? We better get our thinking straight before our poor excuses for Christian church leaders throw us all to the ravenous wolves (as per Matthew 7:15).

There is no compelling logical leap from Jesus’s childhood life; or, for that matter, from the desperate circumstances of many Jews fleeing from Hitler’s Europe, to the present inundation of Europe with millions of people with clashing, antithetical and supremacist cultural and religious values.

Let’s be clear. Some people whose values have messed up their own villages want to live in our prosperous and harmonious villages. They want to bring with them the same values responsible for creating the mess from which they are attempting to escape. They want to impose those values on us.

And the Archbishop and other Christian leaders think that’s OK? They think that the reported sojourn of Jesus in Egypt is a parallel situation? It’s funny to me, in any event, that those Christians making (specious and one-sided) inter-faith overtures to Muslims take one part of Matthew as gospel, while preferring to conveniently overlook passages referring to false prophets; among whom surely Muhammed is the doozy.

Abject appeasement and false reasoning is now the face of Christian leadership. Nothing good will come of it. It’s part of a debilitating multicultural malaise that has overtaken our politics and media.

It’s best to remember that barbarians take on a veneer of restraint when opposed by superior forces. Watch out as the balance of populations and power shifts. I doubt bishops will do too well. Beheadings in public squares? No, they’ll convert. After all, one god is as good as another when minds are conflicted by doubt, Sharia and Jesus rotting in his grave.

17 thoughts on “The Boat People of Bethlehem

  • Tezza says:

    Good piece. Worth correcting the obvious typo of ‘personably’ for ‘personally’ ( and then deleting this comment!)

  • Jim Campbell says:

    Just a couple of other points Peter. I doubt that the refugees coming to Australia were advised by God so do unlike Mary, Joseph and the family, who were instructed by God to go to Egypr. The former more likely by Allah. Also, as there was no social services in Egypt at that time I’m sure Joseph used his carpentry skills to survive rather than blushing on us. Lastly Mary and the gang returned to Bethlehem as soon as Herod had departed unlike our current crop. Yes, the Church leaders have a lot to answer for in these duplicitous pronouncements. Another doozy in a similar vein is the good old Good Samaritan.

  • Salome says:

    Not only the Abp of C, but also the Pope was coming out with this ‘refugees’ nonsense for Christmas. You might have added that the Holy Family didn’t get on a plane to fly over numerous ‘safe’ countries and then, in one of those safe countries, pay a people smuggler for berths on a boat that would take them to yet another country far, far away, and also that Joseph didn’t go into Egypt by himself. The opportunities to distinguish are endless. Great piece, and merry Christmas (for it still is).

    • prsmith14@gmail.com says:

      Yes, Salome, apparently the Pope saw Jesus in the eyes of every refugee child. It’s unbelievable. Then again Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran. Maybe they really do want Islam to take over. Thanks for you kind comment. HNY.

  • padraic says:

    An excellent article and I agree with Salome’s points. And also the trip to Egypt was temporary, as Jim Campbell indicates, so the Pope should read the Gospels occasionally to keep up to date. And going to Egypt was no big deal, even with a donkey as transport. It was like living in Tweed Heads where a short walk will transport you from NSW to Queensland. Conflating the Holy Family’s trip to Egypt with jet flyers and boat trippers of today shows an elitist contempt for peoples’ intelligence.

  • Jody says:

    I have just met in NZ a hotel manager who emigrated from Bavaria when he married his Kiwi wife. After a recent trip with his young son back to Germany he reports on how dreadful Europe is now.

  • gardner.peter.d says:

    Another point derives from this: “Only when the King was dead did they return to Israel; settling in Nazareth rather than Bethlehem, because they remained wary of Herod’s son who ruled in Judaea.”

    They went home.

    Resolution of the conference leading to the UN Convention on refugees Article D:
    “recommends that Governments continue to receive refugees in their territories
    and that they act in concert in a true spirit of international cooperation
    in order that these refugees may find asylum and the possibility
    of resettlement.”
    The preamble to the text of the convention:
    “expressing the wish that all States, recognizing the social and humanitarian
    nature of the problem of refugees, will do everything within their power to
    prevent this problem from becoming a cause of tension between States,”
    Article 2: “Every refugee has duties to the country in which he finds himself, which
    require in particular that he conform to its laws and regulations as well as to
    measures taken for the maintenance of public order.”

    Short of getting these people home asap, we should at least get them into a country where their culture best fits.
    Furthermore, there will come a time, I suspect not too distant, when the burdens on countries hosting refugees and the tensions between states resulting from them become so great that the only viable solution will be military takeover of the countries that are the main sources of the problem.
    What went wrong? Laws on religious freedom in the West were formulated when Islam was largely excluded from the West and the problem was division within Christianity. We have freedom to practice any religion so long as it is a part of Christianity or not actively opposed to Christianity. Once that was settled we could more easily separate church and state. The laws of Islam, now being imported by mass Muslim immigration excludes Christianity and Judaism and makes no distinction between church and state. The West needs urgently to reconsider both religious freedom and the separation of the state and church. If it does not the decision will be made for it by those who are not yet but soon will be part of it and who openly declare their difference and greater loyalty to islam, not their host country. Why do we adopt these people in such large numbers? it is suicidal for Western culture.

  • brian.doak@bigpond.com says:

    Again a most pertinent article Peter and seconded so well by reader response.
    The ‘boat people of Bethlehem’ theme is also unfortunately given space in the otherwise good Eternity newspaper of the Bible Society distributed in churches on request. Tim Costello, chief advocate of World Vision Australia, in his regular column in that monthly newspaper in bleeding heart fashion has also misused an analogy of boat people and the Holy Family travelling to Egypt.

    The editor of Eternity is likable and competent and no doubt constrained to let Tim Costello emote monthly. However the one-off opinion piece ‘Refugees are our equal’by Justine Toh in the June 2017 issue was a real doosy. She laments “the fraught state of refugee politics in this country [Australia]” and refers sympathetically to the write-up in The Guardian [where else?] of the Iranian novelist and refugee to the US who is “angry that she feels a constant pressure to prove how thankful she is” for the refuge. [Justine Toh completed a Doctorate in Cultural Studies at Macquarie University in 2009 so it may take a lifetime to repair that damage]

  • padraic says:

    In the not so distant past, if a stable country was surrounded by countries destabilized because of conflicts and genuine refugees from the unstable countries entered the stable country seeking refuge, the government of the stable country worked with the UNHCR and agencies of other countries to provide food and shelter for the refugees and the host country would open up its health system to the refugees. At the present time the UN is operating two systems. One system is the legitimate system outlined above, in use for refugees from Syria and Iraq. Jordan and Turkey (Saudi Arabia – where are you?) have huge refugee camps in their territory run in conjunction with the UNHCR and agencies of other governments. The other system is an illegal system run by crooks whereby refugees (both genuine and fraudulent) are transported into Europe where the compassionistas take over. What has changed is that the UN, as well as doing its duty through the UNHCR, is supporting the crooks, by telling countries that they have to take all refugees (genuine or otherwise) on a permanent basis without proper processing, and without taking into consideration the social and cultural impact on the host country of this massive and uncontrolled migration. If a country demurs (as does Australia) it is branded by the UN as some sort of Nazi conspiracy. We may have to circle the wagons and leave the UN and form another bloc of like minded nations.

  • padraic says:

    Sorry, I lost some of the original typing through pressing the wrong button. After the first sentence ending with “”.. would open up its health system to the refugees” I had written “Once the conflicts in the surrounding countries had ended and stability restored, the host country repatriated all the refugees back to their own countries. That was how the system worked”

  • whitelaughter says:

    A little thought would have made you realise that you could have replaced this article with a single line:

    “If the bleeding hearts had been in charge 21 centuries ago, Christ would have been drowned in a leaky boat.”

    That is the modern massacre of the innocents that the church should have condemned.

    • prsmith14@gmail.com says:

      Not sure about this whitelaughter. The goal is not to prevent refugees drowning at sea. I’m with Sarah Hanson-Young on that one. The goal is to prevent them setting off in the first place and, in the second place, from landing. It’s not our job to save people from their own follies.


    The Holy Family went back to their home town to be counted in the Census. I would be very happy if the suicide bombers blew themselves up in their home towns.

  • Christopher Saitta says:

    Personally I am supportive of the Judeo-Christian values that have been essential in the laying the foundation of Greco-Roman civilization. If I was told to choose a place in the Middle East to live; it would be Israel as I find the Israel’s stewardship in the region to be a beacon of light for a harmonious, loving and beautiful existence to live within. Unfortunately there are elements within our own borders across the Western world; irrespective of religion, race, creed or color; who wish to destroy Western civilization. I acknowledge mistakes have been made, however life isn’t perfect. Perfection is supposed to be for the next life according to history, religion and philosophy.

Leave a Reply