If you are truly as ethical as you claim, prove it by offering some of those church desecrating asylum seekers a new life in YOUR house, then,  contact a few of your friends, each of whom will share similar views to yourself, and persuade them to take in the remainder.(If they are as ethical as you, they shouldn't take much persuading).When you've done all that, get back to me, and we'll talk some more.  

I think that a wise and ethical man always looks first at his own acts and what he can do to alter someone’s plight, before looking for the person who could be hold accountable for that person’s misfortune. Or is that a typical leftish way of thinking?

And so, the debate turns full circle, and we are left asking ourselves the pertinent question,  who is ultimately responsible for the plight of these individuals, and who should feel the most guilt? I say all responsibility and guilt lies squarely with their own government(s), while you appear to blame yourself and try to implicate me in your personal guilt trip.Well, sorry, that just ain't gonna happen. Clearly, on this subject, we should agree to disagree. 

“Where am I going wrong?”

Nowhere, I can assure you. The priorities putted forwards by you are very honorable. Provided we have to chose between whom to harm and whom to save. The Problem is: I don’t see the harm inflicted on my friends or acquaintances by giving these people a chance to live.

I try to care about (i.e. have sympathy for/empathy with) everybody, but I have a tendency to prioritise. I place family before friends, friends before acquaintances, acquaintancies before strangers and strangers before known enemies. Tell me, Peter, where am I going wrong?

Caring is one thing, but guilt and responsibility are another thing entirely.

“I certainly do not intend losing any sleep over it.”

Well, I do. But that's probably because I have a real father and mother and their two children in mind. They are in Belgium for several years now. Honest decent people, with children well integrated and good students in our local school. You see, it becomes harder if those people suddenly get a real face. Well, for me it gets harder. The VB politicians in our town don’t seem to mind. But then I think you’ll have to dig very deep under their prejudices and harsh principles to find a conscience, let alone a hart.

If, as we are repeatedly told, all cultures are equal, and 'We' are no better than 'Them', I see no reason why 'We' should feel guilty about the way in which other cultures treat their own people, and I certainly do not intend losing any sleep over it.

I can at least understand the Iranians. We all know what kind of a regime there is in that country. Sending them back can result in cruelties against them. They’ll do what ever is possible to stay here. I can’t understand that we can send people to “the axis of evil” (not my words) and still sleep with a clear conscience.
 

I'd be interested to know why these people chose a  Christian place of worship to make their last stand, and not a mosque. Here's one suggestion.
 
http://westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003558.html
 

Let's see if I understand you correctly, because you are an atheist it's ok to trash other people's places of worship.  Your statement paints you as an arrogant mindless jerk, but, then, you knew that. 

Being an atheist I would much rather have them locked up there than on the streets.

This protest was supposed to end April 10.  The original report said about forty people had occupied the church a month ago, mostly Iranian, Moroccans and Algerians.  Later reports say 60 and 150 people.

Photos are available from Indymedia here and here, as well as a video report. (French and Dutch)

Islam In Europe
 

I have some pictures that I took at a similar event in a Ghent church in 2006 where the church was occupied with the  acceptance of the priest for about 3 weeks by immigrants asking for regularisation:

http://picasaweb.google.com/costi81/Belgia/photo#5178843620260391938