I Will Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Anything. Much.
I grew up in fairly upper middle class Irish Catholic household. My Mother came from a dirt-poor small Cajun town and my Daddy was from a working class Irish family. My mom escaped poverty by coming to the city as soon as she finished high school (the only one in her family to graduate). My daddy used the GI Bill to get a law degree and became a Landman in a large oil company. Both being Catholics, I’m sure they expected many children but after my brother and I were born they weren’t able to have any more children. All of the aunts and uncles on both sides of the family had bunches of kids. Since my parents came from the depression-era mentality they wanted their kids to have a much better life than they did. We weren’t exactly spoiled but we certainly got what we wanted.
I ended up marrying right after college to a teacher. I had three kids pretty quick. We spent the first years living in Japan with few expenses. I was able to work part time basically to get out of the house so I didn’t go crazy, not because I needed to. My mom became ill and we decided to move home. Reality check. Our income was cut in half along with adding all the bills that come with the normal cost of living. My parents wanted us to live near them and since we couldn’t afford to buy a house they did it for us. It was in a great little yuppie neighborhood with little country clubs and good schools. The kinds of things that living on a teacher’s salary wouldn’t support. I went to work managing a bookstore and that helped some, but it was a hectic life.
Things were pretty rough at home. My mom died, my eldest kid was, ummmm, shall we say, a challenge. The other two were fine but I’m sure they felt neglected. In fact, I guess you could say my parenting style was benign neglect. I missed parent teacher conferences all the time and never remembered to send back that freaking permission slip. To add insult to injury, I drove a damn Mini Van. I hated that van. All of my friends had great jobs, if they had to work. They drove great cars. They chaperoned field trips. Their kids went to great schools and their husbands made a whole shit load of money. At least it seemed that way to me.
That year I decided to give up Coveting for Lent. Not just material things, but coveting lifestyles as well. You know, that Lifestyle of the Not Quite Rich But I Can Act Like It thing. I made a conscious decision to not be jealous of other people and what they had and how they lived. I bet most of them were faking it anyway. It worked out okay. If I felt a little envious I would remind myself not to and try to be happy for them instead. It wasn’t too bad. I think I was a little bit happier actually. When the end of the year rolled around I decided it would make a great resolution. Besides I wasn’t going to stop drinking. I do live in New Orleans for Pete’s sake.
Let me tell you, 40 days is a whole lot easier than 365 days. But I still stuck with the program. If my friend got a new car, well that’s great. My van runs pretty good. What a great color that Mercedes is! Oh my, your son got straight A’s and you got a bumper sticker about your honor student? Yay! I told myself that I was happy that my son had gone a few weeks without getting a detention. That really did make me happy. No worries. When my friends talked about going to lunches and stuff, I was okay with that. I was glad they could spend time messing around while their kids were in school. Because of my retail schedule there were days that I could do that too, just not five days a week. And besides, how many lunches can you go to without getting bored? I got through that year and decided that I was a better person. Why not do it again next year? So I did.
That next year was really hard. My dad found a girlfriend. Not quite grandmother material to say the least. I might even have considered her a floozy if this were the 1950. She was only five years older than me! Why should she have his company and not me? He couldn’t pick the kids up from school if he was going out and having a social life. I had to remind myself to be happy for him. And I made myself. It was good to see him happy. A woman that I knew well got a new house. I totally wanted that house. It had a freaking pool. How cool would that be? I might have backslid a bit but I came around. My house was adequate. It had lots of room and it was a gift from my parents. I didn't even have a mortgage! I wished her well and it was a fun going to her pool parties.
And then came the big challenge. One of my best friends got a great job. I wanted that job. It would have been perfect for me. My income would have increased a bunch and I would have had flexible hours. It was just the job I had been dreaming about. I ducked her calls for days. I was green with envy. I didn’t know if I could keep the jealousy out of my voice when talking to her. It took a while but then I reminded myself about that damn resolution that I had made. The next time the phone rang with her call I answered it. She was very happy; you could hear the excitement in her voice. That did make me happy. Actually it made me very happy and we ended up talking and joking for hours. I found I honestly was happy for her, I didn't need to pretend. My job was fine. In fact my job was better than a whole bunch of other jobs that people have to do. Being happy for her really wasn’t that hard to do after all.
That resolution ended up being a life choice. It’s been at least 15 years since then and I still try to follow this resolution. I think I’m a better person because of it. I’m glad when my friends get new stuff. I’m happy for them, not their stuff. I don’t want their stuff. I’m good with my own stuff. Stuff is just that…stuff. Now if a co-worker or neighbor won the lottery it might take some work but I hope that I would remember to not Covet their newly found riches and to be happy for them. Maybe. I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Joan H.
pretend_farmer
Don Rich
koshersalaami
Lea Lane
zanelle
Salon.com
Comments
For the most part I don't feel envy, but that's because I don't care about a lot of the stuff people envy......and, by no effort on my part, I am in a position to live well (my standards are very low). I can't imagine a job or a car that would cause me to grind my teeth . So I'm not virtuous. I'm like the apparently brave person who feels no fear, while you're like the truly brave person who does feel fear but moves forward anyway.
Nicely done~r
It's amazing how we can become carried away with seeing other's fortune in terms of how it affects our lives, when in reality it doesn't! Being free of coveting thy neighbor's things allows us the capacity to be truly grateful for what we have and happy for the things our neighbors are fortunate enough to possess.
Loved the post! Happy New Year!
The first truth is that life consists of suffering: disease, loss, pain, death. Even love is a kind of suffering, because it comes paired with loss and the consequent pain.
The second truth is that the cause of this suffering is attachment (covetousness).
The third truth is that the path to end suffering is to give up attachment to things.
The fourth truth is the eight-fold path, how to live your life without falling prey to the illusions of attachment.
Jesus taught not to store up your treasures where moth and rust doth corrupt.
I find that as I live longer I have more experiences of attaining things and then finding they are ultimately a disappointment. There is never quite the joy one expects, or it is too short-lived. The possessions lose their lustre and novelty. It becomes easier to dismiss as youthful folly those wants that seem to crop up without end.
It becomes easier to focus on how good the things are that we already have, and how little we actually need.
All I see in people jealous of what other have gotten and wanting it taken away. The rich don't pay their fair share. Big Oil and other companies make to much profit we should take it from then or as the Senator from California wants nationalize their business. And the list goes on.
What really gets me upset is President Obama has already started his reelection campaign as I have to help the middle class because you didn't get enough because of those evil people who have more than you. He sees what you rejected as his ticket to a second term.
And please don't get me started on the misguided OWS people.
"Nor the ox he bought her
"Thank heavens the Lord thy God said not a word
"About thy neighbor's daughter!"
--18th century English poem
Follow the Sixth Commandment: It's Easy!
The first colony of English-speaking Europeans was Jamestown, settled in 1609 for trade, not religious freedom.
Fewer than half of the 102 Mayflower passengers in 1620 were "Pilgrims" seeking religious freedom. The secular United States of America was formed over 150 years later.
The words "under God," did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them.
Similarly, "In God we Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956, though it did appear on some coins beginning in 1864.
The original U.S. motto, written by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum ("Of Many, One"), celebrating plurality and diversity.
American law is not based on the Bible or the Ten Commandments. The first four Commandments in the Old Testament are religious edicts having nothing to do with law or ethical behavior. Only three (homicide, theft, and perjury) are relevant to American law, and have existed in cultures long before Moses.
A "freedom from religion organization argues that if Americans honored the commandment against "coveting," free enterprise would collapse!
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife
"Nor the ox he bought her
"Thank heavens the Lord thy God said not a word
"About thy neighbor's daughter!"
--18th century English poem
The Supreme Court has ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in public schools is unconstitutional. Public schools exist to educate, not to proselytize. Horace Mann, the father of our public school system, championed the elimination of sectarianism from American schools, largely accomplished by the 1840s.
Bible reading, prayers or hymns in public schools were absent from most public schools by the end of the l9th century, after Catholic or minority-religion immigrants objected to Protestant bias in public schools.
As early as the 1850s, the Superintendent of Schools of New York state ordered that prayers could no longer be required as part of public school activities.
The Cincinnati Board of Education ruled in 1869 that "religious instruction and the reading of religious books, including the Holy Bible, was prohibited in the common schools of Cincinnati."
Presidents Ulysses S. Grant and Theodore Roosevelt called for "absolutely nonsectarian public schools." Roosevelt stated that it is "not our business to have the Protestant Bible or the Catholic Vulgate or the Talmud read in those schools."
In McCollum vs. Board of Education (1948), the Supreme Court struck down religious instruction in public schools. In Tudor vs.Board of Education of Rutherford the Court let stand a lower court ruling that the practice of allowing volunteers to distribute Gideon Bibles at public schools was unconstitutional.
In Engel vs. Vitale (1962), the Court ruled that prayer in public schools is unconstitutional. In Abington Township School Districtvs. Schempp (1963), the Court ruled that Bible reading and recitation of "the Lord’s Prayer" in public schools are unconstitutional.
In Stone vs. Graham (1980), the posting of the Ten Commandments in classrooms was also declared unconstitutional. In Lee vs.Weisman (1992), the Court ruled that prayers at public school graduation ceremonies are an establishment of religion.
****
Again: Follow the Sixth Commandment: It's Easy!
"Thou shalt not kill does not apply to murder of one's own kind only; but to all living beings: and this Commandment was inscribed in the human breast long before it was proclaimed from Sinai."
--Count Leo Tolstoy
In his 1984 pamphlet, "You Mean That's in the Bible?", aimed at a Christian audience, on the topic of vegetarianism based on kindness to animals, writer Steven Rosen (Satyaraja dasa) writes:
"...scriptural knowledge is simple for the simple--but it is difficult for the twisted. The Bible clearly says 'thou shalt not kill' (Exodus 20:13). It could not be stated more clearly.
"The exact Hebrew is lo tirtzach, which accurately translates: 'thou shalt not kill.'
"One of the greatest scholars of Hebrew/English linguistics (in the Twentieth Century) -- Dr. Reuben Alcalay -- has written in his mammoth book The Complete Hebrew/English Dictionary that 'tirtzach' refers to 'any kind of killing whatsoever.'
"The word 'lo,' as you might suspect, means 'thou shalt not.
"DON'T KILL! Let's face it, the Bible is clear on this point."
****
Rosen repeats his observations in his 1987 book, Food for the Spirit: Vegetarianism and the World's Religions:
"Essential to the principle of compassion and mutual love is the Sixth Commandment: Thou shalt not kill. Although simple and direct, the commandment is rarely taken literally.
"The exact Hebrew for Exodus 20:13, where this commandment is found, reads 'lo tirtzach.' According to Reuben Alcalay, the word 'tirtzach' refers to 'any kind of killing whatsoever.' The exact translation, therefore, asks us to refrain from killing in toto.
"'Thou shalt not' needs no interpretation. The controversial word is 'kill,' commonly defined as 1) to deprive of life; 2) to put an end to; 3) to destroy the vital or essential quality of. If anything that has life can be killed, then an animal can be killed; according to this commandment, the killing of animals is forbidden.
"Life is commonly defined as the quality which distinguishes a vital and functioning being from a dead body. Although a complex phenomenon, life manifests its presence by symptoms as recognizable to a student of the world's scriptures as to a biologist.
"All living entities pass through six phases: birth, growth, maintenance, reproduction, dwindling and death. An animal, then, by man's definition as well as by God's, qualifies as a living being. What is living can be killed, and to kill is to break a commandment as holy as any."
Rosen repeats these arguments again in his 2004 book, Holy Cow: the Hare Krishna Contribution to Vegetarianism and Animal Rights:
"There are several studies on the significance of 'Thou shalt not kill' from a vegetarian point of view. The most noted work from this perspective would be Aaron Frankel's much-referred to book, Thou Shalt Not Kill--the Torah of Vegetarianism, which was published...in ...1896."
And again:
"According to Reuben Alcalay, one of the twentieth century's great linguistic scholars and author of The Complete Hebrew-English Dictionary, the commandment refers to 'any kind of killing whatsoever.'
"The original Hebrew, he says, lo tirtzakh, which asks us to refrain from killing in toto. If what he says is true, we can analyze the commandment as follows: 'Thou shalt not' needs no interpretation.
"The controversial word is 'kill,' commonly defined as (1) to deprive of life; (2) to put and end to; (3) to destroy to vital or essential quality of.
"If anything that has life can be killed, an animal can be killed as well; according to this commandment, then, the killing of animals is forbidden."
However, Rosen admits:
"The Hebrew word for 'murder' is ratzakh, whereas the word for 'kill' is haroq.
"The commandment, in the original Hebrew, indeed states: 'Lo tirtzakh' (a form of ratzakh), not 'Lo Taharoq.'
"In other words, it is 'Thou shalt not murder,' as opposed to 'Thou shalt not kill.'
"Why, then, does Reuben Alcalay say that tirtzakh refers to 'any kind of killing whatsoever' ?
"The difference between these two words -- 'kill' and 'murder' -- has more to do with the modern usage than original texts: the demarcation between these words may have been different in biblical times.
"Indeed, the Bible appears conflicted in this regard, as do the Bible translations.
"The HarperCollins Study Bible, which is the New Revised standard Version and the rendition used by the Society of Biblical Literature, interprets the commandment as 'Thou shalt not murder,' but it then includes a footnote saying 'or kill.' The New Oxford Annotated Bible does the same.
"The King James Version of the Bible, and others too numerous to mention here, translate the verse as 'Thou Shalt Not Kill,' while others keep going back and forth, changing from 'kill' to 'murder' and, every few years, back again.
"Perhaps the most important version to use the word 'kill' instead of 'murder' is The Holy Bible: From Ancient Eastern Manuscripts. This work is based on the earliest editions of the text, making use of rare Aramaic fragments.
"Here we find that the Exodus verse is unequivocally rendered as 'Thou shalt not kill,' though a lengthy Introduction explains why well-meaning translators choose otherwise."
In Holy Cow, in the chapter entitled 'Thou Shalt Not Kill', Steven Rosen quotes Philip L. Pick (1910-1992), founder of the Jewish Vegetarian Society, after researching the subject for nearly thirty years, as having concluded:
"...the oft-used translation 'thou shalt not commit murder' wrongfully restricts the original meaning of the word. Certainly today, the abundance of non-flesh, health giving foods unquestionably means that every time a creature is killed for food a sin against God has been committed."
****
"Actually, one who is guided by Jesus Christ will certainly get liberation (from the cycle of repeated birth and death).
"But it is very hard to find a man who is actually being guided by Jesus Christ...violence is against the Bible's injunctions.
"How can they kill if they are following the Bible?"
--A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, in conversation with Peace Corps worker Bob Cohen in India, Perfect Questions, Perfect Answers
"If you love your neighbor as yourself, then why this 'civilization' which claims to be 'Christian,' is slaughtering so many animals, and why they are constantly slaughtering each other in wars, in the streets?
"Jesus says you will not kill... and my spiritual master is giving love of God, he is giving love of God to the world."
--A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Srimad Bhagavatam lecture, 1971
****
At a monastic retreat near Paris in July of 1973, the following conversation took place between A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and French Roman Catholic Cardinal Jean Danielou:
ACBSP: Jesus Christ said, "Thou shalt not kill." So why is it that the Christian people are engaged in animal killing?
Cardinal Danielou: Certainly in Christianity it is forbidden to kill, but we believe that there is a difference between the life of a human being, and the life of the beasts. The life of a human being is sacred because man is made in the image of God; therefore, to kill a human being is forbidden.
ACBSP: But the Bible does not simply say, "Do not kill the human being." It says broadly, "Thou shalt not kill."
Cardinal Danielou: We believe that only human life is sacred.
ACBSP: That is your interpretation. the commandment is "Thou shalt not kill."
Cardinal Danielou: It is necessary for man to kill animals in order to have food to eat.
ACBSP: No. Man can eat grains, vegetables, fruits...
Cardinal Danielou: No flesh?
ACBSP: No. Human beings are meant to eat vegetarian food. The tiger does not come to eat your fruits. His prescribed food is animal flesh. But man's food is vegetables, fruits, grains...So how can you say that animal killing is not a sin?...Jesus Christ taught "Thou shalt not kill." Why do you interpret this to suit your own convenience? When there is no other food, someone may eat meat to keep from starving. That is another thing. But it is most sinful to regularly maintain slaughterhouses just to satisfy your tongue. Actually, you will not even have a human society until this cruel practice of maintaining slaughterhouses is stopped.
****
In 1974, near Frankfurt, Germany, a similar discussion took place with Father Emmanuel Jungclaussen, a Benedictine monk:
Father Emmanuel: We Christians also preach love of God, and we try to realize love of God and render service to Him with all our heart and all our soul. Now, what is the difference between your movement and ours? Why do you send your disciples to the Western countries to preach love of God when the gospel of Jesus Christ is propounding the same message?
ACBSP: The problem is that the Christians do not follow the commandments of God. Do you agree?
Father Emmanuel: Yes, to a large extent you're right.
ACBSP: Then what is the meaning of the Christians' love for God? If you do not follow the orders of God, then where is your love? Therefore we have come to teach what it means to love God: if you love Him, you cannot be disobedient to His orders. And if you're disobedient, your love is not true... They have rubber-stamped themselves "Christian," "Hindu," or "Mohammadan," but they do not obey God. That is the problem... The first point is that they violate the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" by maintaining slaughterhouses. Do you agree that this commandment is being violated?
Father Emmanuel: Personally, I agree.
ACBSP: Good. So if the Christians want to love God, they must stop killing animals...This program follows the teachings of the Bible; it is not my philosophy. Please act accordingly and you will see how the world situation will change.
-----
"If you want to pass from the consciousness of flesh into the consciousness of Spirit, you must withdraw your attention from the things of the flesh," taught Dr. Charles Filmore, founder of Unity. "You must recognize that there is but one universal life, one universal substance, one universal intelligence, and that every animal is contending for its life and is entitled to that life.
"But in the matter of animal slaughter, who countenances it or defends it after his eyes have been opened to the unity of life? Let us remember that the right kind of food will give our minds and our spirits opportunity to express that which is one with ideal life."
Founded in the 19th century at Lee's Summit, Missouri, the Unity School within Protestant Christianity teaches that the time will come when man will look back upon eating animal flesh as he now looks upon cannibalism:
"As man unfolds spiritually he more and more perceives the necessity of fulfilling the divine law in every department of his life. From experience and observation Unity believes that somewhere along the way, as he develops spiritually, man comes to question seriously the rightness of meat as part of his diet.
"Man is naturally loathe to take life, even though the idea of killing animals for food has so long been sponsored by the race that he feels it is right and proper to do so.
"However, the Commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill,' considered in its fullest sense, includes the killing of animals...There is a kindred spirit in all living things--a love for life.
"Any man who considers honestly the oneness of life feels an aversion to eating meat: that is a reaction of his mind towards anything so foreign to the idea of universal life."
****
Civil rights leader Dick Gregory credits the Judeo-Christian ethic and the teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. with having caused him to become a vegetarian. In 1973, he drew a connection between vegetarianism and nonviolent civil disobedience:
"...the philosophy of nonviolence, which I learned from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. during my involvement in the civil rights movement was first responsible for my change in diet.
"I became a vegetarian in 1965. I had been a participant in all of the 'major' and most of the 'minor' civil rights demonstrations of the early sixties, including the March on Washington and the Selma to Montgomery March.
"Under the leadership of Dr. King, I became totally committed to nonviolence, and I was convinced that nonviolence meant opposition to killing in any form.
"I felt the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' applied to human beings not only in their dealings with each other -- war, lynching, assassination, murder and the like -- but in their practice of killing animals for food or sport.
"Animals and humans suffer and die alike... Violence causes the same pain, the same spilling of blood, the same stench of death, the same arrogant, cruel and brutal taking of life."
In a 1979 interview with vegetarian historian Rynn Berry, Dick Gregory explained:
"Because of the civil rights movement, I decided I couldn't be thoroughly nonviolent and participate in the destruction of animals for my dinner...
"I didn't become a vegetarian for health reasons; I became a vegetarian strictly for moral reasons... Vegetarianism will definitely become a people's movement."
When asked if humans will ultimately have to answer to a Supreme Being for their exploitation of animals, Gregory replied, “I think we answer for that every time we go to the hospital with cancer and other diseases.”
Gregory has also expressed the opinion that the plight of the poor will improve as humans cease to slaughter animals:
“I would say that the treatment of animals has something to do with the treatment of people. The Europeans have always regarded their slaves and the people they have colonized as animals.”
Since the 1980s, Dick Gregory has been involved in the anti-drug campaign.
Bruce Friedrich of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), a Catholic vegan, reported in the late '90s that under Gregory’s influence, Dexter Scott King—head of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolence in Atlanta, and son of the slain civil rights leader—and King’s widow, Coretta Scott King, had both become vegans.
Australian philosopher Peter Singer concludes in the preface to his 1975 book, Animal Liberation:
“...by ceasing to rear and kill animals for food, we can make extra food available for humans that, properly distributed, would eliminate starvation and malnutrition from this planet. Animal liberation is human liberation, too.”
The animal rights movement should be supported by all caring Americans.
What about adultery, fornication, idolatry, same-sex marriage, or any other 'sin' conservative Christians find offensive and are ready and willing to cast the first stone?