Bernie Sanders Versus the Tenth Commandment

Bernie Sanders, with the regularity of a steam engine, has pounded away for months at the injustice, the wickedness, even the racism of “income inequality.” If ever there was a Johnny one-note on the American political scene, he is it. Yet almost nobody, and least of all his hapless opponent Hillary Clinton, has thought to call into question the ethical validity or inflammatory character of the covetousness this political slogan urges upon the public, with a recklessness that has visited untold calamities upon Europe. (Among politicians, Charlie Rangel of New York did have the temerity to say, “OK, income inequality… But does he [Sanders] have anything else to say?”) Has religious illiteracy now reached the point in America where the Tenth Commandment has been so entirely forgotten that the most blatant repudiations of it go unnoticed? Here it is, for the sake of those who have forgotten (or never knew):

“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 is your neighbor’s.” — Exodus 20:17.

This last of the ten commandments, as Biblical commentators have often observed, differs from previous “negative” ones in that it prohibits not an action (murder, adultery, theft, false witness) but a state of mind—covetousness—that is at the root of most sins against our neighbors. No doubt John Stuart Mill, a far more literate liberal than Bernie Sanders, had it in mind when he complained that “’thou shalt not’ preponderates unduly over ‘thou shalt’” in Biblical morality.

The ethical wisdom of this commandment has all too often been demonstrated by the way in which covetousness expresses itself in the murderous character of “negative” politics, which directs the wrath of the covetous against a particular group. In Sanders’ typical stump speech, it is usually “Wall Street” or “the one percent.” In the rhetoric of the “Occupy Wall Street” and other “Occupy…” mobs that Sanders admires, it gets a bit more specific about attaching a name to “the one percent.” But most specific of all is Noam Chomsky, whom Sanders has praised as “a very vocal and important voice [sic] in the wilderness of intellectual life in America…a person who [sic] I think we’re all very proud of.” Chomsky, who has publicly endorsed his friend Sanders for the Democratic nomination, has strong views about just which group of Americans should be named as the chief target of an aggressive campaign of class warfare against “the rich and privileged” whom Sanders is daily berating. “Antisemitism,” Chomsky has declared, “is no longer a problem, fortunately. It’s raised, but it’s raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control. That’s why antisemitism is becoming an issue.” To this does covetousness very often lead. Is it even remotely possible that Sanders doesn’t know?

The rapidly accumulating evidence of Sanders’ intense hostility to Israel will, if he should gain the Democratic nomination, require examination of his contempt for what Emil Fackenheim, in a famous essay of 1967, called the 614th Commandment: “From this beginning confrontation [with the Holocaust] there emerges what I will boldly term a 614th commandment: the authentic Jew of today is forbidden to hand Hitler yet another, posthumous victory.” Since Passover is now approaching, perhaps Sanders will put to himself the following, Fifth Question recommended by Ruth Wisse. It too implies a commandment that Sanders might do well to consider:

“History will ask only one question of our generation: did you secure the state of Israel? Woe to a North American Jewry that does not ensure a rousing reply in the affirmative.”

From what I can gather, Buddhism also warns against “desire” for that which one does not have: such desire can be seen as the root of unhappiness, since one is doomed to be disappointed because no matter what you get, it is never enough.

One of my philosophical colleagues once asked “Which occupation would Buddha most disapprove of?” The answer was advertising: that which urges us to desire things we do not need.

So many liberals are less Christian than they are of alternative beliefs, such as Buddhism, and yet they don’t acknowledge the misdirection of such “desire” or covetousness.

“Neither socialists nor communists have any use for Commandments.”

Not to mention “one nation under God”, The Constitution of
the United States, the Bill of Rights or personal freedom.
Socialists are the exact opposite and natural enemy of a
free society. Sanders ideology makes him a natural enemy
of the United States yet he’s qualified to be president?
Why? The constitution is now null and void.

True. But the strength in Christianity-—and why the worldview and Justice System of Chrisitanity is superior to any other belief system-—is that the focus on suppression of desire is not to extinction—it is to redirect the desires to God and Good. It is what created the West and the Virtue (Excellence) in Art and Inventions, etc.

Desire is essential to human nature. You can no longer be “human” if you destroy human desires-—anymore than you can be “good” when you use other human beings as a “Means to an End” (for selfish lust, sodomy, etc.). You take the power of desire and focus it for the Good/Excellence.

Our Justice System is based only on Christian Ethics because it is the most rational and Just (human) in the history of mankind. The early Catholic Fathers of the Faith aligned the “Laws of Nature” (God’s Works) to the Bible (God’s Word) which is what created the Age of Wisdom and Modern Science (Laws of Non-Contradiction unlike in the East) and the idea of uniqueness and Individualism-—(individual natural rights from God-—not “group” rights from the State. Natural Rights from God are unalienable-—can’t give them away either). Killing babies or pro-sodomy “laws” are promoting Vice and an “unjust law” (evil) which denies human beings basic Natural Rights and Dignity (”End”) which makes the “abortion” laws “null and void” under the Constitution.

Without Just Law, we will collapse (Cicero). When laws promote vice (Marxism/humans as commodities (”Means”)-—”group” rights from State—not in line with God’s Laws——you get vice promotion and that will always collapse civil society since it always creates envy, hate, corruptions and greed.

Income inequality in socialist countries is much more extreme than it is in America.

In countries like Brazil and Venezuela, top politicians literally own the country. They can do anything they want with impunity, while millions of their countrymen have little more than the shirts on their backs. There is no welfare system, no “safety net” at all.

The unemployed either find work in criminal enterprises, or beg.

North Korea is a socialist country. The leader of North Korea, Kim Jong Un, not only owns the country, he also owns the people. A word from him can send entire extended families to the concentration camps, or to their deaths. That’s real income inequality.

Agree.

Also: Violating the commandment against covetousness leads directly to violation of the commandment against stealing.

Voting to steal from your neighbor (raise the taxes on certain groups) does not make it okay. By this logic, if I steal from you it’s wrong, but if my friend and I agree to steal from you, it’s suddenly okay.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.