I’m that rarest of beasts, a Jew who is a believer in antidisestablishmentarianism and who supports the Establishment of the Church of England. I hold to this point of view firstly because I’m not one of those who wish to see religion and spirituality banished from public life and a cold, reductive, morally vacuous, materialist, secular society take its place.

My second reason for my point of view is that it is better to have a reasonable, moderate voice baked into the culture and practises of the State, than have a religious free for all and a scramble for influence where the noisiest, most pushy, most well connected of faiths or spiritual paths, calls the shots. It is in this respect, although I understand the reasons why the Founding Fathers of the USA decided not to have an Established Church, Britain differs from the UK. Because of that decision America is a religious free for all with everything that’s both good and bad about that particular situation. Britain has had its religious convulsions and the compromise that is the Church of England, that finally coalesced in the mid to late 19th century is the result and sometimes compromises are the best and most satisfactory option. I have no political problem with states having a religious character whether that be Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic moderate or Jewish, although I wish that parts of the Israeli Jewish Establishment didn’t have the screaming ab dabs about such things as women rabbis.

I believe that it is right that the senior prelates of the Church of England should advise both ministers and monarch and put the view of the Church to those in temporal positions of authority. Personally I would want senior churchmen to advise the Government against policies that harm the British people and also promote policies which make the lives of those people better, more prosperous and more fulfilled. The moral priority of the Church of England should be to promote the moral, spiritual, economic and cultural improvement of the Kingdom and the subjects thereof.

If a threat to the British people appears, whom the Church of England is and has been empowered to serve, then there is a moral imperative for the church to speak up. But the problem at present is that senior clerics of the Church of England are not speaking up for the British people, they are however quite happy, as Lords Spiritual, to stand up in the House of Lords and admonish the government for taking even the limited steps they are to control a damaging and burdensome influx crossing Britain’s borders.

I am disgusted at Justin Welby the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent intervention in the Upper House on the subject of the Government’s Illegal Migration Bill. According to a report in the Guardian newspaper, the Archbishop said that the Bill was ‘morally unacceptable’. The Archbishop then went on to claim that the Bill would do ‘great damage to the UK’s reputation both at home and abroad’.

The Archbishop seems far more concerned with garnering support from the Guardian reading classes and the pro-migration NGO’s and gives the impression that these groups and this political demographic are far more important than the average Briton who has to live with the negative effects of Britain’s de facto open borders nightmare. Whilst I believe that the Archbishop should be able to speak on moral issues whether in the House of Lords or elsewhere, the Archbishop’s comments showed that he and his Church doesn’t appear to have any concern about the effects of having massive numbers of illegal unvetted and potentially dangerous migrants entering the UK and nor does he appear in any way concerned about the the equally worrying high level of legal immigration on Britons themselves.

For the Archbishop the primary concern is clearly the well being of the invaders and whether or not the country is well thought of by the sort of pro-migration NGO’s that quite clearly don’t give a toss about the average Briton. The Archbishop doesn’t seem to give a toss about the areas of Britain that have had illegal migrants dumped on them and who occupy the sorts of hotel facilities and get services that the average Briton cannot afford for themselves or are not able to easily access. The Archbishop doesn’t seem to care about the fact that too many of the illegals who have entered the UK via the Channel are suspected Islamic terrorists or that at worst these illegals bring criminality to our shores and are a financial burden on the country and some spend their taxpayer funded stays here, leering at or assaulting British women and children.

It leaves a very bad taste in the mouth to see Britain’s senior Christian prelate caring more for the rapists, murderers and Islamic extremists who slip into Britain and abuse and exploit Britain’s weak asylum system. It’s especially galling that the Archbishop of Canterbury can find the time to speak up for these invaders whilst saying nothing about the disaster that Britain’s asylum and border policies have brought down on the heads of Britons, often those Britons who live in some of the more economically and socially challenged areas.

Having an Established Church works when the Church is clearly on the side of the people that it was set up to minister to. The Church of England and its prelates need to remember whose side they are supposed to be on and start to care more for those Britons who live in extremely precarious circumstances and a bit less about the migrants who come here not because they are fleeing oppression, but to exploit this nation, its people and its resources. At this time of great threat to Britain and its people from mass migration both legal and illegal, we should be seeing the Church of England speaking up against this threat to the British people. That we are not seeing this is giving a massive amount of ammunition to those who wish to see the link between Church and State broken.

Speaking out against Government policy on migration would not be as bad as it is if the Archbishop was also speaking up for those Britons who are victims of the invaders and therefore victims of Government migration policy. The problem is that at present we have a church leadership that doesn’t seem to care about what these migrants do to Britons and only cares about the nation’s already open door being propped further open.

As the Tory MP Miriam Cates recently said: ‘there’s nothing un-Christian about controlling migration’ and used the analogy of how a child needs to be disciplined in order to civilise it. To not intervene when a child hits their sibling is not acting in the aggressive child’s best interests. Therefore not to have secure borders, even if it is at the cost of keeping out individuals who want to get to the UK, is to do a disservice to those already living in the UK, a place that is Britons’ only home.

What we have today in the Church of England is pathological altruism where the clerics have locked themselves into a situation where they see only good in migrants and cannot see that allowing open borders is bad for Britons. The Church of England has become an organisation dominated by those who have an attitude of telescopic philanthropy and they see the migrants, whether legal or illegal, as a high status cause whilst completely ignoring the suffering of those Britons who are much closer to home and those who are much more deserving of the Church’s ministrations and attention.

As I said before, I’m an antidisestablishmentarianist, but I don’t know how long I can hold onto this philosophical position if the Church of England continues to back these utterly wrong political horses.