On the Politics of Covetousness

In a political season (Is it ever NOT a political season?), cultural values can often be revealed in what messages and tactics political candidates use to gain the favor, and thus the votes, of the electorate. We see what at least THEY think is important to us by how they attempt to offer what we want. For this reason, a political speech or advertisement can seem either affirming or insulting. However, what appears common among many across part lines (though I find that one party does this more than others), is the encouragement to break, violate, transgress or just down right ignore the 10th Commandment: THOU SHALT NOT COVET.

The full verse of Exodus 20:17, translated for the NET Bible reads, "You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that belongs to your neighbor.” In essence, the question as to whether it is fair whether my neighbor has something that I do not should not enter my mind; and if it does, it should be expelled as a negative emotion. I'm to remember that I cannot know all the of the circumstances through which they came to possess what they do; that for all I know they gained such possessions through strictly virtuous means; and that it's possible their example is simply meant to inspire me to be more industrious. While it may be possible that my neighbor acquired their possessions through "ill gotten gain," I cannot know that for sure; and even if I do know, that is a matter for them to answer to God for - who has commanded that I not covet their possessions especially if they unethically gained them.

For this reason, one might as well, in our culture and economy, paraphrase verse 17 the following way:

You shall NOT covet...

- your neighbor's healthcare plan
- your neighbor's retirement plan
- your neighbor's car
- your neighbor's house
- your neighbor's school district
- your neighbor's subdivision
- your neighbor's prosperity
- your neighbor's daycare
- your neighbor's toys
- your neighbor's country club membership
- your neighbor's university
- your neighbor's title in the industry, or
- your neighbor's influence in the public square.

In other words, my neighbor's business is none of my business. As one that has had less that my "neighbor" almost ever since leaving home at age 20, I can attest that this is not always easy to perform. It is, however, the moral mandate nonetheless. They are responsible for them, and I am responsible for me. Each is to guard their own conscience before God; and it is God that has mandated not to covet.

If I say that it is not fair for my neighbor to have that which I do not, it is God I argue with - not with political pundits. It is God to whom I must answer if I ignore his prohibition against this attitude, just as if I had ignored his commandment of "Thou shalt do no murder," or "Thou shalt not commit adultery," or "Thou shalt not steal" to name a few others. In the choice between virtue and vice, these commands remove ambiguity concerning key moral "pillars" of a lasting society. A culture can ill-afford, and maintain any expectation of longevity, to encourage wide-spread dishonoring of fathers and mothers, rampant murder or stealing, adultery as a pastime or bearing false witness as a praiseworthy trait. In like manner, so also will the society assuredly self-destruct that encourages ubiquitous coveting as well.

For this reason, I tire so greatly of political candidates seeking to win my vote with promises to tax from my neighbor that which my neighbor then cannot refuse them, in order to turn around and offer it to me. Being among the "poor" (by all economic measures within the U.S. economy we are so - obviously not so when compared to the "developing world"), I feel particularly patronized by the promises offered by candidates during their various campaigns. I have a wealthy neighbor next door. I like him and his wife. They are a nice couple. We share life concerns and yard duties. However, whatever a politician promises to provide for me, I know that must take from him; that he'll have no choice in the matter; his generosity be damned, they will take it through taxation and offer it to me so that I'll be grateful for their provision. In essence, the politician is encouraging me to covet my neighbor's belongings and lifestyle amenities so that I'll will vote for them. They are encouraging me to break or ignore the 10th commandment!

In a culture that is increasingly venerating vice over virtue, this is another aspect that I've been disgusted with the mechanism by which our desires are revealed to the world. The politics of covetousness have me wandering whether the electorate has not so punted the Divine lawgiver as to ever receive this admonishment. Certainly no candidate will ever be elected suggesting to news reporters or potential voters, when asked whether its fair that the rich have what they do, "That's none of your business." Even a relatively poor person such as myself could hardly get away with such an admonishment now. Too many seem just naturally desirous to "get even" with "the man." I lament such instincts. It's does not speak well for us.

Generation "xbox" at War

The present military action in Libya has several troubling components. I can assert, with a clear conscience, that I would have the same concerns even if I had voted for the current President. It seems that the "bar" has been considerably lowered for what constitutes a "clear and present danger" to the sovereignty of the United States. For some reason, we simply are not as war averse as we use to be. For all the accusations leveled by the current culture against previous generations for being less humanitarian, the present day society seems much more comfortable with prolonged military operations with less definable objectives. The present generation of American leaders fight more wars in more places than previous generations did.

This critique uses WWII as "the gold standard" for setting the "bar" in justifying Americans being sent out to war.

To ensure consistency, I will apply to this to the "War on Terror." Unfortunately, what began as a response to a specific attack has seemingly lived beyond its "shelf life."

A "shelf life"?!?! For wars?! Yes. Definitely. When the "War on Terror" began in Afghanistan, many complained that it was taking too long (after 1 year!). I remember, in 2003, chiding the culture, saying, "Come on, people! Can't you have at least the attention span of the WWII generation?" Now, eight years later, I'm inclined to remember those words I spoke and admit: the WWII generation weren't asked to maintain their support for a war THIS long, against an enemy THIS nebulous.

WWII set the bar by offering a clearly definable enemy, with clearly definable objectives. The war effort had a goal (the unconditional surrender of the Axis nations: Japan, Germany and Italy). That generation, it seems, was less willing to enter war that could not be tied directly to American sovereignty or national interests. Accused of being isolationists, those in leadership demonstrated an understandable reluctance to commit U.S. soldiers and sailors, ships, tanks and planes to a cause not convincing to a peaceful populace. The nagging question seemed to be: when the troops return for their victory parade, who will the thankful civilians know they were protected from?

The point is that the WWII generation appeared to accept the "hell" that is war because the enemy was THAT evil, THAT organized, THAT powerful and THAT much of a threat. Therefore, because of those conditions, we were willing to enter into that war (though we were the latecomers). However, as a culture, we seemed to hate war then. We understood that war is "hell," and a horrific perversion foisted upon the human experience when evil forces are on the march, that must be resisted and defeated. Therefore, when we got into a war, we fought as nasty and efficiently as possible in order to destroy the enemy and go home. We seemed to understand then how bad war is, or at least how bad it SHOULD be so that no one wants to do it very often.

Since then a watershed change has taken place. War is seemingly a lot less abhorrent to the present generation. Thus, we're willing to do it often, and for far less threatening reasons.
We don't require that our incarnations of evil be Hitler anymore...
they can merely be Saddam Hussein.
We don't require that our enemies be threats to our national sovereignty...
they can merely be treats to our "interests."
We don't require that our enemies be powerful compare to us...
they can merely be cruel to their neighbors.
We don't require that our enemies even have a military...
then can merely have enough weapons to terrorize their neighbors.

Thus, we now seem more into "fighting" than we are into "winning."
We're seemingly willing to keep the event going rather than to decisively conclude it.
It's like we don't think it's THAT bad anymore.
It's like a video game.

Generation "xbox" has decided that war is like a "game" that can just keep going, so long as you can show that you seemingly have the upper hand. In a video game, you fight surgically, house-to-house, with hand-held rockets, small arms and occasional bombs. War is clean and neat. You don't gain any points for collateral damage. Our enemies know this, so they have the advantage of knowing that though they destroy our buildings, we will not destroy theirs.

The "War on Terror" has come to resemble more an xbox game than the destruction levels of WWII that convinced the German, Japanese and Italian cultures to get along with the West. And because we fight wars this way, we seem willing to fight them when no discernible mission or clear national threat is present. Libya is along this vein; in this category.

Some may suggest that I'm only critical because this present action was ordered by a President that I did not vote for. But in defense I say that the "War on Terror," though seemingly closer to that standard at the front end, has slipped below it over the years. Therefore, I believe this is a consistent opinion. America does not like war, and thus needs better reasons to enter into it. But the xbox generation needs only the thrill of fighting to justifying picking up the controls and rebooting the game.

To Build or Not to Build a Mosque

The prospect of having a mosque built so closely to "ground zero," the site of the World Trade Center collapse, has many up in arms regarding the apparent Muslim 'gall' of this move. Seemingly a blatant initiative to declare victory over taking that ground, the mosque's nearest spire will no doubt symbolize an Islamic version of the raising of the flag on Mount Suribachi after the Battle of Iwo Jima. No greater equivalent of "In your face!" could be accomplished, comparable in offense to the United States building a mega-church within the former palace complex of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. No plausible explanation can be advanced that will convince mourners of 9/11 victims to accept this new development without insult. Far from 'building bridges,' the new mosque development is building a symbol of victory and conquest.

Nevertheless, no credible objection can be advanced that will prohibit the building of the mosque either. That a significant measure of the population is aghast at the decision to allow it cannot add up to legal justification for stopping it. The religious freedom enjoyed in the United States cannot be selectively applied (though many will claim that it currently is anyway). Imagine, however, a city counsel publicly denying the building of a synagogue or church simply because enough outrage in the community could be conjured by those not sharing the faith represented by it. Vocal 'contrarians' can be found to oppose any worthy cause as well as unworthy ones. The offended rabble are abundant and ever at the ready when needed. Thus the Constitution rightly restricts the amount of real power the many can exercise against the few. To those that suggest this is a misapplication of the First Amendment, can they not imagine a brood of noisy Congregationalists 'derailing' attempts to build a new Anglican church in the late 18th century?

According to the Constitution, that the building of a new mosque in the shadow of 'ground zero' can be seen as no less than an Islamic war victory cannot be of any legal consequence. Instead, the protections afforded the Muslim under the Constitution are the same for us all - Christian, Jew, etc. How quickly people forget that the proverbial 'pendulum' swings both ways. While I may hope that Christians would have better 'taste' than to build a cathedral on the rubble of the former Bathist headquarters in Iraq, that Baghdad's city planners allowed it would certainly be evidence that they are entering the 21st century with the West.

It is the nature of American civil religion that we have various factions of fervent belief all seeking to convert one another, yet leaving that mission out of the legal process. Church historians may critique this paradigm as having launched the erosion of Christianity in the West, but acknowledge some of its benefits too. In the meantime, an 'a-religious' legal system is the 'bed' we have made, now we have to kneel and pray next to it, before we lie in it.