Walls and Borders, Part 6

This entry is part 6 of 9 in the series Walls Borders

Walls and Borders, Part 6

Racism and Nationalism

Let us move on to Argument Two

“Those who support a wall are racist and do not want people of a darker skin living in the country.”

This race card is a disingenuous source of attack pulled out way too often and with no justification.

Both the left and the right have participated in creating our legal immigration laws and policies and there is nothing in them that reflect racism, or discrimination because of race.

The latest poll (Jan 13, 2019) available at the time of this writing was commissioned by ABC News and the Washington Post. It reveals that 42% of the population support building a wall.

Now think a moment. Can anyone really rationally believe that 42% of the population is so racist that they want a wall built just so people from other races cannot come into the country? This thinking is just plain silly, especially when you realize that this poll tells us that 22% of non whites support the wall. Are they racists against themselves?

Here is the interesting part. Among the 54% who oppose the wall 9% see the border problem as a crisis situation and an additional 47% see it as a serious problem. So, 56% of the 54% who do not support a wall still see the border as a serious problem that needs additional controls. They just figure there are other solutions better than a wall.

56% of the 54% equals an additional 30%. Add that to the 42% who support a wall and you have a total of 72% of the population who want extra controls at the border, be it a wall or some other method, to control the inflow of people into the country.

Do 72% of the population desire more border control because they are racist? No one in their right mind can believe this.

So, why do 72% of the population want more secure borders? The answer is simple and it has nothing to do with race. There are three main concerns.

(1) We are limited in the number of people we can assimilate without overtaxing our resources.

(2) We want to screen the people to weed out potentially harmful people such as criminals and terrorists.

(3) We want to make sure they support our country’s laws and ideals of freedom and justice and will not be subversive to our way of life.

We have two groups of people attempting to get in the country. One has legally applied and waiting in line and the other attempts to forcefully cross the border and ignores the law.

Which group deserves the priority?

The answer is obvious and again race has nothing to do with this for both groups are of the same racial mixture.

Argument Three:

“Those who support stronger borders are nationalists, and nationalism is just plain wrong. Spiritual teachers, and particularly DK, are against nationalism.”

Like racism, the idea of nationalism is used as a label to sidestep the reasoning process and used merely as a tool to defeat an opposing view. If you do not like the other guy’s thinking just call him a nationalist or racist, and if the label sticks then no additional thinking or discussion is necessary. It is then concluded that anything that comes out of the guy’s mouth is tainted and not to be trusted no matter how logical it seems. This is similar to the approach of the member of a fundamentalist religion who labels someone as being in league with the devil or evil spirits. Nothing such a person says can be trusted in their view.

A nationalist is simply someone who loves their country and desires to put its needs first above that of other competing countries.

Therefore a nationalist would do the following:

He would try to feed the hungry in his country first, figuring other countries will be doing the same with their own people.

He would seek to secure freedom and security in his homeland before that of others.

He would generally support his team in the Olympics above that of other nations.

Now such nationalistic support does not mean the guy is against helping other countries, but most figure they cannot be much good to the world if they at first do not take care of themselves.

For instance, on an individual level, if one neglects his health he loses power to help others and can wind up being a burden instead. Each of us must put our health first else we may have no power to help others.

So, if nationalism is harmless and in many cases helpful, why did DK and others who are enlightened speak against it?

Again, one must read more than out of context quotes here for as DK wrote most of his thoughts on this as we were in a life and death struggle against the extreme nationalism of Germany during World War II. He appropriately condemned their extreme nationalism, materialism and selfishness, but did not condemn all nationalism. Instead, he said there were two forms of nationalism. One is good and the other not so much.

Concerning the bad nationalism he says:

“First, there is the spirit of nationalism with its sense of sovereignty and its selfish desires and aspirations. This, in its worst aspect, sets one nation against another, fosters a sense of national superiority and leads the citizens of a nation to regard themselves and their institutions as superior to those of another nation; it cultivates pride of race, of history, of possessions and of cultural progress and breeds an arrogance, a boastfulness and a contempt of other civilizations and cultures which is evil and degenerating; it engenders also a willingness to sacrifice other people’s interests to one’s own and a basic failure to admit that “God hath made all men equal”. This type of nationalism is universal and everywhere to be found and no nation is free from it; it indicates a blindness, a cruelty and a lack of proportion for which mankind is already paying a terrible price and which will bring humanity down in ruins if persisted in.”

So this negative nationalism goes beyond self interest to great selfishness, denial of equal rights and a feeling of superiority leading to contempt for others.

But then he tells us there is a good nationalism. He states:

“There is, needless to say, an ideal nationalism which is the reverse of all this; it exists as yet only in the minds of an enlightened few in every nation, but it is not yet an effective and constructive aspect of any nation anywhere; it remains still a dream, a hope and, let us believe, a fixed intention. This type of nationalism rightly fosters its individual civilization but as a national contribution to the general good of the comity of nations and not as a means of self-glorification; it defends its constitution, its lands and its people through the rectitude of its living expression, the beauty of its mode of life and the selflessness of its attitudes; it does not infringe, for any reason, the rights of other people or nations. It aims to improve and perfect its own mode of life so that all in the world may benefit. It is a living, vital, spiritual organism and not a selfish, material organization.

Problems of Humanity, Page 88-89

This enlightened nationalist still focuses first upon his own country, but not so he can feel superior but to make the greatest possible contribution to the planet. In doing this he says country still “rightly fosters its individual civilization” and “defends its constitution, its lands and its people,” but without infringing on the rights of others.

I see myself in this second category, as I do not have a feeling of superiority about being a U.S. citizen, but want my country to do well and defend its Constitution and Bill of Rights. I value the freedom and prosperity here and desire to share it with the rest of the world. But like individual humans, if we do not look after our interests and become ill then we could lose our power to assist other nations.

Yes, there are many selfish nationalists in all nations, but there are also good ones who want their nation to thrive so they cannot only help themselves, but the world.

As it is the word “nationalist” has been promoted as an evil label to describe political opponents as racists, haters, selfish and evil. Such approach does not exist on the path of return. We are all brothers and sisters in the same boat and the time is overdue that we focus on goodwill and unity rather than division through distorted use of labels.

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Walls and Borders, Part 5

This entry is part 5 of 9 in the series Walls Borders

Walls and Borders, Part 5

Inclusion and Limits

Ideals are fine and most are eventually achieved. Flaws in human thinking lie not with seeking the ideal, but how to get there.

For instance, equality is a nice ideal, but to get there by forcing everyone toward sameness has proven disastrous.

Even so, completely open borders is a benevolent ideal, but to be too open too soon could destroy a country if its resources are overwhelmed.

There are over seven and a half billion people on the earth and, most likely, over five billion of them would move to the United States if they could. Just one billion of them coming here would turn the country into such a wasteland where citizens would be fleeing to Mexico for relief.

It is only common sense that when there are many more who want to enter than leave that the border needs to be controlled by sensible laws and enforcement while assisting other countries in obtaining greater equality.

Indeed it is a virtue to be inclusive if applied with common sense, but like all virtues, if taken to the extreme, it becomes negative rather than positive not only with countries but clear down to the individual household.

Let us use the Law of Correspondences and relate open borders to a family home. For U.S. citizens the United States is our larger home, but in the microcosm the property we live in is our home also.

You may have a relative or friend call now and then asking if they can crash a few days. It may be an inconvenience but you accept them and figure you are being inclusive.

Now suppose an old acquaintance who you never considered a close friend shows up on your doorstep with a wife, six kids and three large dogs. Taking him in may indeed test your normally inclusive nature.

If one really wanted to be inclusive he could take in a few homeless people. The trouble is that even if one were willing he would be nervous about doing it since the homeless guy could be on drugs and dangerous.

But let us suppose that Billy Bob is one righteous dude and decides to open his home and resources to those in need. He invites three homeless people to stay with him. He is fortunate in that he chose three that were not dangerous, but he finds they do take much more advantage of his good nature than he planned. His favorite food and drink disappear very quickly.

Then a couple days later word spreads about his good nature and three more homeless show up on his doorstep with very sad stories. Billy Bob reluctantly lets them in, thinking it is good to be inclusive.

Several days later, after having his house trashed, three more show up. He is determined to be inclusive and again lets them in. Then it becomes a daily occurrence for more to show up until his house is overflowing with all kinds of strange individuals who were more concerned with getting than giving. Finally, after sustaining more grief and expense than he could handle he throws his arms up and orders all of then to leave. Several become angry and threaten him and say they are staying no matter what. Billy Bob is beside himself and decides the only thing he can do is move out and let the bunch fend for themselves.

He gets a room at the Motel 6 and waits. Within a month the home has suffered so much destruction and abuse that it was not even fit for the homeless to live in. The bunch then leaves the house and moves into a shelter that at least has running water and some food.

Was Billy Bob inclusive?

He seemed to be.

Should our nation take the Billy Bob approach to our borders?

Obviously if we do not operate with some limitations too many people in need entering the country could wind up creating much damage as happened to Billy Bob.

Did Billy Bob practice the principle of inclusion, and does our country if it uses no judgment as to who may enter?


So are some true believers being extreme and advocating the Billy Bob approach to inclusiveness and open borders?

Indeed they are.

Part of the reason for this is that various teachers have rightfully taught of a time in the future where we will have open borders, throughout the world. Unfortunately, believers see such teachings in terms of black and white that need to be applied right now with no judgment involved.

In our story Billy Bob had a problem because of the great inequality between him and those he tried to include. That created a situation where he needed to use common sense in applying his inclusiveness, else more harm than good would result. If he lived in a city where all had a place to live then his inclusiveness would not create such a problem.

Similarly, if we create a world where all have their needs met then open borders will make sense.

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Walls and Borders, Part 4

This entry is part 4 of 9 in the series Walls Borders

Walls and Borders, Part 4

Inclusion and Borders

Many spiritual students are not only against a wall but are against borders themselves as well as enforcement of current law. Instead, these often support sanctuary cities which shield numerous individuals with a criminal background.

Let us examine some of their positions and see if they are in harmony with the Ancient Wisdom.

Argument One: Borders and walls exclude people. If we are enlightened we will include everyone.

Most students will agree that we should be as inclusive possible but the question is, should inclusiveness apply more to opportunity than access to all?

For the answer let us use the Law of Correspondences. A nation is merely a large group with rules, and that which makes it work corresponds to smaller groups such as organizations, businesses, families and even ashrams.

You would think then that if we wanted to understand the correct application of inclusiveness that we would look to the masters to see how they handle inclusiveness.

When we examine the teachings we see that the ashrams of the masters are inclusive in that fact that no one is denied entrance because of race, sex, nationality, social status, economic situation, education, looks or many other factors.

Does this mean that they will let anyone in?

Absolutely not. The opportunity to qualify is open to all, but qualify they must. DK says this:

“…in an Ashram only that is to be found within the sphere of influence of an Ashram which is of the soul. Nothing of the personality is allowed to enter in—personality reactions, disabilities, limitations, personality thoughts and all that is material and connected with the lower nature, never reaches the Ashram at all. … An Ashram is basically formed of those who through their knowledge, devotion and service have worked their way out of a group into an inner centre where the Master’s energy, wisdom and effort is more easily available. In order to work their way from the group into the Ashram, disciples will need most carefully to discriminate between their high grade personality inclinations, their responses to truth and ideals and their true soul reactions, spiritual wisdom and intuitive perception.

Discipleship in the New Age, Vol 1, Page 694-695

Not only are they careful who they will admit, but difficulties arise even when the applicant has done everything possible to qualify. DK tells us that when a new member comes in that, for a period of time, his added energy is very disruptive to the group. Much work is slowed or disrupted as the group goes through a period of adjustment. In addition to this the new member also has to adjust to the new and higher vibration. It would be destructive to allow in an applicant who has not done all to make himself ready, for it is problematic as it is to assimilate one who is qualified.

Most other groups follow the same process as does the Hierarchy. A business, for instance, doesn’t hire just anyone. They first take in applications, then do interviews and finally hire. Then comes the period of adjustment and assimilation. Fellow workers adjust to the new guy and the new guy adjusts to them.

Let us say the business needs ten new employees but only five apply. In this case, because of the need they have to seek out more. On the other hand, if 20 applied they have double the number they can assimilate wanting jobs, but to keep their business alive and well they need to reject the surplus ten.

The same principles that apply to small groups apply to large ones. Nations have certain cultures, structure and a quality of life they desire to maintain and are selective as to who they will let in and how many.

Mexico, for instance, has some pretty strict guideless on outsiders coming in the country. Immigration authorities must be assured that foreigners will be useful to the state well as have the necessary funds to take care of themselves.

Illegal immigration is a felony and anyone with false papers or entering the country with false pretenses could be imprisoned. Those who assist illegals are subject to prosecution.

Their constitution forbids non citizens from participating in politics or to participate in demonstrations or express opinions in public about domestic politics and there are no equal employment rights even for legal immigrants.

Overall, Mexico is much less inclusive toward foreign visitors and immigration than the United States.

The Pew research Center says that as of 2015, “the United Nations estimates that 46.6 million people living in the United States were not born there. This means that about one-in-five international migrants (19%) live in the U.S. The U.S. immigrant population is nearly four times that of the world’s next largest immigrant destination – Germany, with about 12 million immigrants.”

Overall the U. S. policies have been and continue to be generous toward immigrants and, like any other nation, group, or the Hierarchy itself, has the right to issue laws and qualifications and make sure they are followed so correct assimilation can be made.

It is true that the world is evolving toward a society of open borders, and that will be a good thing when the time comes that all nations have the resources and benevolence in government to take care of their own people. Unfortunately, we are not there yet and in current circumstances there is no condemnation in DK’s teachings of nations who protect their borders. We have the ideal set before us, but we must proceed one step at a time.

Here are some wise words from D K

“The Masters utilize the form to the uttermost; They seek to work through it, imprisoning the life in confining walls for just as long as the purpose is served and the race instructed through that form. Then the time comes that the form no longer serves the purpose intended, when the structure atrophies, crystallises and becomes easily destructible. Its destruction then becomes the matter of greatest concern and usefulness, and it goes, whilst a new form takes its place. Watch and see if this be not so. Always the building of the form, always its utilisation for as long as possible, always the destruction of the form when it hinders and cramps the expanding light, always then the rapid reconstruction of a new form. Such has been the method since the commencement of the aeon.”

A Treatise on White Magic, Pg 371

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Walls and  Borders, Part 3

This entry is part 3 of 9 in the series Walls Borders

Walls and  Borders, Part 3

The Ancient Wisdom and Walls

Some students of Ancient Wisdom may dismiss quotes from the Bible, as made in the last section, as old school but consider this. DK, through Alice A. Bailey often quoted the Bible. Also, the quotes used were either from Christ or the Book of Revelation. DK tells us that Christ is the head of the Hierarchy “the Master of the Masters and the Teacher of angels and of men.” Thus quoting him is quoting the highest possible authority that we have on the planet.

Secondly, we quoted from the Book of Revelations, which is stated as being from Christ through an angel to John. And who was that angel? DK tells us “the Book of Revelations which was dictated 1900 years ago by the disciple who is now known as the Master Hilarion, reference is made to the “city which stands four-square.”

Telepathy, Page 163

Speaking of Hilarion he says: “On the fifth Ray of Concrete Knowledge or Science, we find the Master Hilarion, who, in an earlier incarnation was Paul of Tarsus.”

Initiation Human and Solar, Pg 59

That explains this scripture:

“And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Rev 19:10

So we have Hilarion (Paul) appearing to John giving him the Apocalypse telling him that he is one of his brethren. Paul, a fellow worker with John, had just been martyred a couple years earlier, and now he manifests under the direction of Christ to give John his great revelation.

Concerning this DK says: “In the New Testament, John, the beloved disciple, was privileged to gain a cosmic picture and a true prophetic vision which he embodied in the Apocalypse, but he is the only one who so achieved and he achieved because he loved so deeply, so wisely and so inclusively.”

Glamour: a World Problem, Page 137

We therefore, have the authority of Christ and the Master Hilarion behind the book making it worthy of our attention.

It is true that there is a lot of symbolism in the book but the symbols have true meaning that will register with the soul.

Thus, the wall around the city of New Jerusalem represents a barrier of separation whether it be a symbol or a physical manifestation.

Most esoteric students realize that all barriers, even those imposed by Divine Power are of a temporary nature as are all forms. In the end, all lives will tread the path of return and forge through or transcend the barriers and return to their true home with God. They will be as the Prodigal Son who awoke and returned to the house of his father.

In the meantime, many forms are necessary for us to use, including walls. Every house has walls to protect us from the elements. In addition, most have fences for various reasons of separation. Some communities have walls around the whole area to provide the occupants with extra security.

During the early history of the United States many new outposts began as a forts surrounded by a wall of protection. Eventually, the need for such walls reached an end and is no longer required.

Thus a nation may legitimately build a wall to fill a need at one time, but when the need is no longer there then the walls can come down.

Many students dream of the ideal becoming a reality and want to speed it along. And what is that ideal as far as walls and barriers go?

The ideal is a world that needs no separation, no walls and no borders. The division in philosophy comes not in the ideal (on which most agree), but on how to get there and at what speed.

There are always some who want to take giant leaps without careful planning which often leads to disaster and others who just want to keep things as they are or move very slowly.

Concerning the idealists who want it all yesterday DK says this:

“The visionary dreamer or the well-intentioned but impractical person whose ideas and world plans and suggestions as to the new world order litter the desks of world leaders and of those groups and organisations who are attempting practically to blueprint the future. Their dreams and ideas deal with projects for which the world of today is not ready and will not be ready for several thousand years. It is an easy thing for them to present impossible Utopias which have not the faintest relation to things which are needed today and which could be made possible. The name of these people is legion, and at this time they constitute a definite hindrance. A vision of the impossible is not the type of vision which will keep the people from perishing. Because of an inability to compromise and to face up to things as they are, these people and those whom they influence are landed in despair and disillusionment.”

Externalization of the Hierarchy, Pages 459-460

In light of this we should ask ourselves what would be the ideal as far as the southern border of the United States goes?

I think most would agree that our northern border with Canada is pretty close to the ideal. We have a fairly equivalent exchange, from both countries of individuals crossing the border to live or visit. Neither country is concerned about their resources being overtaxed by too much or illegal border crossing.

The reason for this balance is obvious, and it has nothing to do with race as is disingenuously presented as the reason by many. The reason is that both countries have a similar standard and quality of living.

On the other hand, the standard of living for numerous countries south of the border is much lower than the United States. Thus a move from Mexico or Guatemala to the U.S. seems like going from poverty to abundance, whereas a Canadian moving here doesn’t see much difference.

Our southern friends have many times the motive over Canadians to get to the United States by any means possible. This presents a major problem of assimilation as well as the enforcement of current law.

The idealists who want the one borderless world to happen right away want no walls and open borders now. This is a nice ideal, but are they in that group that “constitute a definite hindrance” as DK says?

I would say yes. Instead of blindly plunging forward the disciple must work with “things which are needed today and which could be made possible” and learn to “to compromise and to face up to things as they are,” as stated by DK.

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Walls and Borders, Part 2

This entry is part 2 of 9 in the series Walls Borders

Walls and Borders, Part 2

Jesus and Walls

It is indeed true that Jesus was an inclusive guy. Whereas others who claimed piety shunned prostitutes, drinkers, tax collectors and many common folk as sinners, Jesus went among them, assisting, healing and inviting them to listen to his message. Because Jesus is seen by many as being inclusive and loving some figure he would be against a wall that would be a deterrent for undesirable people to enter the country.

On the other hand, Jerusalem, where Jesus did much of his ministry, had a wall and the temple where he taught also had walls around it. Walls were quite common in his day and neither Jesus or any other writer in the scriptures spoke of them as being evil, or of a people being sinners for putting one up.

It is interesting that the prophets anticipated the manifestation of a New Jerusalem, a higher correspondence of the walled city of old Jerusalem. Concerning this city of God, it was written:

“And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;

“And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates. And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

“And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof. And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal. And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel. And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass.”

Rev 21:9-18

This is to be quite a city. If we translate the measurements into modern units we see that the city is about 1500 miles square as well as 1500 miles in height. Then around the city is a wall that is 266 feet high and guarded by twelve angels.

And why would God and Christ want a giant wall around their city?

Obviously the city is to be a habitation for the good guys and once descended to the earth there will be a need to keep the bad guys out.

“And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” Rev 21:27

“Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs (repulsive people), and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches.”

Rev 22:14-16

It is pretty clear here that those who are approved, and in the book of life, can enter through the gates in the walls, but those who are not so registered will not be allowed entrance. The largest wall that is to ever appear on the earth is to insure that only those approved get through into the city.

It appears that those who claim that Jesus would be against a wall are barking up the wrong tree as he was the one who gave out this revelation through the angel telling of us of the city of God, which has a wall much larger than anything ever constructed on the planet.

And why would the city of God need to keep out the bad guys?

The answer is simple. To keep it a heavenly and desirable place to be there has to be controls as who gets in and who does not. Quality of life is determined by the company you keep and life is much better when you are surrounded by honest and loving people instead of thieves, backstabbers and harmful individuals.

Jesus talked about this separation during his ministry. He gave this parable:

“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.

“So shall it be at the end of the world (age): the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just”

Matt 13:47-49

In Luke chapter 16 we have the account of the rich man who refused to help a poor beggar. After he died he was told, “between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.” Luke 16:26

So, according to Jesus there is even a wall, or barrier of separation in the afterlife.

Jesus was inclusive in that he offered his message to all who would listen and was kind and forgiving to all. That didn’t mean that he wanted to spend eternity with just anyone. Even during his earth life he gathered out twelve of the best people he could find with whom he spent most of his time. His inner circle was handpicked by himself.

Walls can be an advantageous tool of positive separation. They can supply a power to screen those who come through the gates so the destructive people are kept out and the constructive people are allowed in which keeps the area within the walls a place a peace, law and productivity.

Then when the time comes that those on both sides of the wall are equal in what they can contribute the walls can come down.

We are told that the New Jerusalem will have no need for a temple as did the old one. We would hope the time would come that it would also have no need of walls.

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Walls and Borders, Part 1

This entry is part 1 of 9 in the series Walls Borders

Walls and Borders, Part 1

The Controversy

I normally stay away from political topics when writing on spiritual topics but in this case the current topic of whether or not to build a wall and enforce immigration laws overlaps into spiritual thinking and teachings.

Let s begin by stating the controversy.

The political left, as a whole, want no additional physical walls between the borders and do not want to enforce current law. Instead, most desire amnesty followed by voting rights and citizenship to those who are not legally here. Some support a degree of border security, but minimal deportation. Many support sanctuary cities that make it difficult to deport or punish those who have committed crimes. They seem unconcerned about criminals or terrorists entering the country and oppose any additional screening for them.

Overall, the left seems to want to put up a big welcome sign to all who want to come here and ignore all rules or laws to the contrary and label anyone who does want a wall as being racist. They s ay a wall is immoral.

The political right has a very different and opposing view.

First, they see nothing immoral about a wall to secure legal immigration.

They want enforcement of current immigration law, but complain that this is impossible without a wall. They say a wall works in other countries, citing Israel as a prime example. They say it has nothing to do with race, that we would apply the same tactics to Canadians if they were entering our county by the millions and taxing our resources. They say that they are happy to invite immigrants of all races if they seek to legally enter the country.

They say that current immigration laws need to be enforced because we do not have the resources to handle an unlimited number of people. Instead we must determine a number that we can assimilate and make laws around that number and enforce those laws.

Another main argument made is that we need to carefully screen those who enter our country to make sure we do not take in criminals or terrorists.

These two views do indeed clash with each other and have created a division among the people unlike anything since the American Civil War.

You would think that students of the Ancient Wisdom and alternative spiritual thinking would be united on this issue but even among those, who see themselves as more enlightened than most, do not agree here.

The true seeker must ask with an open mind, “What is the truth of the matter here? Should we have open borders and no or minimal laws or closed borders and strict laws?”

This subject touches seekers on such an emotional level that it is difficult for many to even discuss it without heated sensations welling up inside distracting from using the mind and reason. Nevertheless, let us attempt to look at the subject through the clear cold light of reason and established teachings and see where it takes us.

Let us first take up the ideas as to whether a wall is right or wrong in various circumstances.

When we look at numerous walls in history we find they are made for two purposes.

(1) To keep people imprisoned. Or

(2) To keep undesirable people out.

The most famous example of #1 was the Berlin Wall that created a virtual prison for the people of East Germany during the days of the Soviet Union.

As we look back on this, it is obvious to most of the people of the world that this did not have a positive purpose and to keep a whole country locked behind them was evil, and not a good thing.

On the other hand, walls to keep dangerous prisoners away from the public is considered by all nations to be a good and necessary thing to do.

Now let us look at #2. Are walls to keep undesirable people out a good or bad thing?

There are those who claim that a wall on our border is evil just as was the Berlin wall. This is indeed a disingenuous comparison as a wall to imprison inhabitants is a much different animal than one to keep people out. That is like saying a fence around your house is the same as one around a prison. This idea is not logical enough to warrant discussion.

So, let us look at examples of walls of protection in history. Have they been deemed good or evil?

Jerusalem has had walls around it since the time of its creation by David. They have been destroyed a number of times, but always rebuilt.

In addition, Israel today has a wall on its borders. Enemies of Israel want the wall to come down, but friends maintain that Israel would not exist today if they had not created the present system of walls to protect their borders.

The most famous wall in history is that of China to protect its borders. This is seen as a monumental work, but no one condemns the Chinese for seeking to protect their country.

Over a thousand years ago, in 846 AD, Pope Leo IV created the Leonine Wall, completely surrounding the Vatican Hill which still exists today. The present pope is against walls for the United States but has no problem maintaining his own walls.

Throughout history there have been thousands of cities, castles and estates that have used walls to keep out undesirable people and today many of the rich have wall around their estates including some who are against the U.S. wall. President Obama, for instance has an eight foot high wall around his place.

Have any of these walls of protection been condemned as evil by historians or the people?

I cannot think of any, but as we read about them we generally see that the various groups were justified in determining who could enter their domain and who could not.

But what about the general morality of a wall? Shouldn’t we be inclusive rather than exclusive. Wouldn’t Jesus want open borders and allow all to enter his domain?

Next, let us next take a look at the scriptures accepted by the Christ to see what direction they take us. After that, we’ll examine the Bailey writings.

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

The Pope and The Donald

This entry is part 18 of 73 in the series 2015

The Pope and The Donald

I believe that Pope Francis is the first pontiff in history to single out the United States as the evil empire. He hasn’t used that exact phrase, but his criticisms of us reveal that he sees us this way.

First, he criticizes us as being unchristian and greedy because of our free enterprise and capitalism. He seems to think that Jesus wants us enter into the forced sharing programs advocated by socialists and communists rather than leaving sharing up to Christian free will.

Then he lectures to us about destroying the planet though burning fossil fuels, as if we are the only country who has inhabitants driving cars and heating our homes. I wonder if he would have the courage to go to China or Russia and tell them their way of life runs contrary to God’s will.

Then he breaks down the barrier between church and state and addresses both the U.N. and the United States Congress.

Now he adds fuel to political/religious fire and division he has created by attacking a leading presidential candidate. On Thursday, Feb 18, he was asked his views on Donald Trump. The interviewer told the pontiff that Trump “said that if he were elected president he would build a 2,500-km wall along the border. He wants to deport 11 million illegal immigrants.”

To this Pope Francis said

“A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the gospel. … I say only that this man is not Christian if he says things like that.”

Well, Donald did say things exactly like that so Pope Francis is definitely stating that Trump is not a Christian.

Some are trying to whitewash the Pope’s statement saying he didn’t mention Donald by name, but this is silly because the question specifically mentioned him by name meaning the answer was directed specifically at Donald Trump.

To his credit Trump didn’t take the accusation lying down. He said:

“No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith,” He added that people in the government of Mexico “made many disparaging remarks about me to the Pope.”

Then he wrapped it up with this creative possibility:

“If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president.”

So, is the Pope justified in attacking Trump as being unchristian for wanting to build a wall to keep illegals out? Is there anything in the Bible that teaches against keeping out undesirables with walls?

To the contrary the scripture are full of support for wall building. The first thing David did when he established the city that would become Jerusalem was to build more walls.

Later the city was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, but after a period of captivity the Jews rejoiced when Ezra and Nehemiah were allowed to return to Jerusalem and rebuild its walls and so Israel could dwell there safely.

Jerusalem has been famous throughout history as the walled city, but the real clincher in this story is not the Old Jerusalem, but the New Jerusalem. The New Jerusalem is portrayed in the New Testament as the City of God where dwells God and the redeemed. Of this it is written:

“Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, Having the glory of God … And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels.” Rev 21:9-12

And why does God’s own city have a wall? It is to keep out those who are not citizens of the kingdom of God for the following scripture says:

“And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” Rev 21:27

“Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without (outside the wall) are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.” Rev 22:14-15

Someone needs to tell the Pope that even God needs a wall to keep out those who are not authorized citizens of is kingdom.

It’s almost funny when you think of it, especially when you consider that the Vatican has a giant wall 50 feet high and has such strict immigration rules that Donald Trump looks like Mother Teresa by comparison.

The United States should be the last country that Pope Francis should preach about inclusiveness as we take in more immigrants here than any other nation.

In 2013, approximately 41.3 million immigrants lived in the United States and if we add in U. S. born children the number reaches 80 million or about a quarter of our population.

By contrast the whole United Kingdom only has about a half million, France 332,000, Germany, 693,000 and Italy, wherein lies the Vatican only 307,000 less than one percent of the USA. Then as far as the nation which is called the Vatican goes one is much more likely to win the lottery than become a legal immigrant there.

With such a huge number of immigrants already here it is only logical that we should follow the example set by the Christian God and his city, and establish rules and secure our borders so we can make sure that decent people are allowed to come in and to keep out those that would do us damage.

Copyright 2016 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE