Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

Nehemiah ordered by God to build a Wall

February 11th, 2019, Promulgated by Hopefull


12 Responses to “Nehemiah ordered by God to build a Wall”

  1. Diane Harris says:

    It is amazing how many “progressives,” sadly deficient in any ability to morally distinguish the Truth, will support unlimited, wall-less illegal immigration as if it were the essence of charity. And, in doing so, seem to tout themselves as paragons of virtue in giving away what belongs to others. Even the words coming from the mouths and pens of religious leaders presume eradication of the 10th Commandment, and anoint covetousness toward what belongs to “neighbors” as “acceptable” for political purposes, for the sake of “hospitality.”

    They seem to forget that the Wall of Nehemiah was symbolic of God’s love and protection for His People, and above all for protection of their faith, because the culture of the likely intruders was toward idolatry, of great offense to God.

    Praying the beautiful 51st Psalm reiterates the point that the Wall represents God’s love and protection: “In Your Goodness, show favor to Sion: rebuild the walls of Jerusalem.” But the very lack of walls there then, and here now, may indeed show God’s own punishment for the sinfulness of a people, even in the tribulation of end times. The same Psalm acknowledges the guilt of David, who desperately needed God’s protection, as he prays in verse 14: “Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God….” In the history of the world has there ever been a time of greater bloodguiltiness than against the unborn and newly born in our own time and day?

    When the United States was founded, success against the burden of the [Egypt] of the British Empire was widely seen as a miracle, a true blessing. The only thing that could truly undermine the country and its people would be to choose sin over God, and that is exactly where we are today, with a very large segment of the population grossly contaminated by the underlying sin. And Psalm 80 makes very clear how God withdraws His protections at such a time:

    “… Stir up Thy Might, and come to save us! Restore us, O God; let Thy Face shine that we may be saved.…”

    “Thou didst bring a vine out of [Egypt}; Thou didst drive out the nations and plant it…”

    “Why then hast Thou broken down its walls, so that all who pass along the way pluck its fruit?”

    “… give us life and we will call on Thy Name! Restore us O Lord God of Hosts.”

    Lots to think about; lots to pray about.

  2. christian says:

    I am not in favor of separating children from their parents or separating family members.

    BUT I think a wall is in order to be able to keep the criminal and terrorist element from entering along with good and peaceful refugees. There should be a vetting process before entering the United States.

    If the right processes were in place, you wouldn’t have unscrupulous, greedy truck drivers collecting money from illegal refugees to transport them across the border in the back of a truck in untenable conditions, especially in hot summer heat. There have been numerous incidences of illegal refugees dying in the back of a truck from dehydration and heat stroke.

  3. BigE says:

    1) So how does allowing the suffering and persecuted into our country give away “what belongs to others”? What exactly are we giving away?
    2) So a wall is God’s protection for us? We’re God’s people – while those suffering in Central America, and who are trying to get into our country, are not God’s people?

    I 100% agree there needs to be a vetting process.

  4. Diane Harris says:

    @BigE — I will be minimalist about both answers.

    1. “What belongs to others is what belongs to the taxpayers and citizens of the US and to their future generations; i.e. what the “caravans” are heading north to get, without going through lawful entry let alone having contributed anything to build what they covet in the US. And it is not being “given away” — it is being stolen. Calling them “suffering and persecuted” doesn’t make them all so. If we judged numbers to be admitted on that basis, we’d have to start with the slums of India, or parts of Africa, to have a fair basis to judge among various would-be invaders, assuming of course that we, as a free people, decide that we want to be invaded.

    2. Your comment is a total non-sequitor, but to answer anyway — All people are God’s people, and they all have a right any time they want to build their own walls and to protect themselves. They don’t have a right to climb over ours. Citing the words of the bible helps us to understand how historically God has viewed walls built for protection against invasion. Israel has benefited from just such rebuilding of their walls. Mazeltov!

    I see nothing to be gained by rehashing the same ground in a prolonged exchange with you, but others are welcome to do so. BigE, when you throw open the doors of your house,every room and all its resources and assets for use by alleged suffering and persecuted strangers, including criminals and those with third-world diseases, you’ll be entitled to preach it.

  5. BigE says:

    “BigE, when you throw open the doors of your house, every room and all its resources and assets for use by alleged suffering and persecuted strangers, including criminals and those with third-world diseases, you’ll be entitled to preach it.”

    1) You must’ve missed where I said I support everyone being vetted. Which means I’m essentially advocating for more “illegal” immigrants becoming “legal”. That would eliminate the “crime” and “disease” fears.

    2) Why does the analogy have to be we give up our house and all our stuff to immigrants? Why couldn’t it be we just want to offer those folks the same opportunity we had (have) to acquire a house, resources, and assets? And I agree, God doesn’t want those folks climbing over our walls – God wants us inviting them in! God doesn’t want us to be the modern version of the rich man, using our gate to keep the Lazuras off our property….

    3) I never quite get the “your house” (property rights) analogy anyways. None of us “own” the United States. In fact, I think that analogy works against the very property rights you’re trying protect, since as a homeowner in your analogy – I can’t decide to rent my home to those folks. The government dictates who is allowed and not allowed to be in my house. Taking it even further, “how dare those folks try to enter the home we took from the Indians!…lol….”

    4) And finally…Israel is surrounded by nations who have publicly sworn to destroy her. As far as I know, the poor and oppressed trying to escape Central America have done no such thing. They are simply seeking a better life. No wall is necessary. Maybe $5 billion worth of social workers and aid would do a lot more of God’s work.


  6. Diane Harris says:

    The reason that the “analogy” has to involve our own sacrifice is because the Parable of the Good Samaritan is very clear. It is not a priestly network of social justice programs which saves the badly injured man, nor is it a government fund with rules for disbursement; rather, the charity lies in the personal conviction and involvement of the Good Samaritan, personally binding up the wounds, taking the man on his own beast of burden to an inn, and providing his own money to cover expenses. We are so distanced from real charity today, that the only thing left is an artificial ‘feel good’ sensation that we’ve done something with a donation or a vote. We (and I do include myself) can’t even imagine in the analogy actually using our own homes. Charity is worse than sanitized; it has become almost unimaginable.

  7. christian says:

    There is much talk comparing our European ancestor immigrants with the current Mexican immigrants trying to enter our country illegally. Often, it is heard that our European ancestors didn’t have the same issue entering the United States for a chance at a better life. I think these people need to revisit or visit history.

    “Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1882 which was the first comprehensive immigration law to restrict immigrants from Europe. This was followed by the Immigration Act of 1891 which regulated immigration even further.”

    Immigrants coming from Europe had to go through medical and legal examinations, and family members were separated in the process. “Those suspected of having a contagious disease were set aside in a cage apart from the rest of the immigrants.” “If a medical problem was curable, immigrants were sent to the island’s hospital.” “Those with incurable or disabling ailments were excluded from entry and returned to their port of departure at the expense of the shipping line on which they arrived.”

    “Inspectors used a list of 32 questions to determine if an immigrant should be admitted to America. These included their identity, place of origin, occupation, financial status and their planned destination in the United States. Inspectors rejected any immigrant with a criminal record.”

    Read more about the Arrival, The Piers, The Labels, The Baggage Room, Families Separated, Stairway To The Great Hall, Chalk Marks, Physical or Mental Exam Rooms, Medical Problems, Deportation (for incurable diseases and disabling ailments, and those with a criminal history), The Great Hall, The Legal Inspection, Detention In Dormitories, The Stairs Of Separation, The Baggage Reclaim, Money Exchange, and The Exit And Kissing Post. (It doesn’t sound like it was a cake walk to me).

  8. christian says:

    An excellent site which documents the 12 grueling steps to legal immigration through Ellis island which also has photos.

  9. raymondfrice says:

    A priest I know was in Belgium and he ended up at one of the parishes in a city environment. At his first Mass there He noticed that there were quite a few biracial families. Since most of the Belgians were fair complected and a lot of the children were dark, he inquired of the pastor why this might be so.The pastor replied that when homeless street urchins were becoming a problem in the city, the parish decided to do something about it. What did the parishioner do? Individual families adopted a street child and were raising them as their own.

  10. christian says:

    What you have shared is a wonderful account, but I do not see how it relates to the steps involved in legal immigration in which many of our forefathers had to go through to enter the Unites States, which appears in many ways, more grueling than the steps immigrants from Mexico go through to enter the United States legally.

    Restrictions were placed on refugees/immigrants from Europe by Congress in 1882 (The Immigration Act of 1882) and it was regulated even further in 1891 (The Immigration Act of 1891). Those with a criminal background or with an incurable or disabling ailments were not given entry to the United States, but sent back to their port of origin.

    *The United States in the latter part of the 1880’s was concerned that the refugees/immigrants from Europe not place any financial burden or hardship on the United States with regard to housing, feeding, medical care, or any specialized services.

    First of all, every member of the family had to be healthy without any sickness or a contagious disease before entering the United States. Family members were separated during the process of being checked out medically, mentally, and legally. The authorities were very concerned that illness and contagious diseases were not spread. Those found to be ill, even with a cold, were quarantined. Children were quarantined away from their parents.

    Second, they wanted to make sure that especially the head of the household was employable as in having some type of skill, and could provide for themselves and their family. The same went for single adults. European refugees/immigrants had to have at least $20 with them when they entered Ellis Island (a lot of money back then), a plan for employment, and a designated location where they were going to live. (Often, a relative would come to meet them and they would stay with that relative until they got settled).

    Hence, the United States wanted to make sure they did not have provide for the European refugees in any way before they were given legal entry to the United States.
    Why do so many liberal people think refugees at the Mexican border have it worse?

    European refugees/immigrants entered the country legally. There wasn’t a possibility of breaching a barrier to enter illegally. The hospital on Ellis Island used to treat illnesses and contagious diseases deemed curable, had armed guards surrounding it in addition to the patients wearing specialized clothing to signal they were a patient there.

    So why should refugees at the Mexican border be allowed to cross illegally, not going through any of the steps/processes our forefathers went through to enter, (ensuring they were healthy without illness, disease, and disability, were skilled and employable, came with sufficient cash to take care of themselves/and family until they were settled with a job, and had a destination and plan of where they were going to stay)?

    I am sure the conditions aren’t as tough as what our forefathers went through in immigrating from Europe, so why can’t these immigrants enter legally?

Leave a Reply

Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.

-Return to main page-