Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife

It's theological ignorance time! *groans from the knowledgeable Christians in the audience*

I stumbled across a Catholic page explaining the objection to various activities, such as masturbation, based on this commandment. A host of questions sprang up in my mind. Firstly, does this commandment actually apply to women? Secondly, what does covet actually mean here? It seems harsh to forbid an essentially passive, involuntarily response - is the commandment actually forbidding the active pursuit of adultery? What about that bit in Matthew - is it decrying only the active pursuit of sexual misconduct?

In short, ARE FANGURLS DAMNED ZOMG!11?

ETA: Searching for enlightenment on these points I stumbled across a Christian review of Hitchers. It's largely a fair (if negative) review of the film itself. The reviewer spotted the film's atheistic bent, but didn't do the homework required to discover Adams' well-known leanings in that direction.

ETA: *looks at commandment in context* It's a rule about property, not a rule about sexual misconduct:

Do not covet your neighbor's house. Do not covet your neighbor's wife, his male or female slave, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. (Exodus 20:17)

That still leaves me wondering about the meaning of covet, though. Passive desire or active pursuit?

ETA: I found another commentary which explained that fornication, as well as adultery, was prohibited: "We can't get off that easily." (It also talked about the spirit vs the letter of the law, which was helpful.)

(no subject)

On a wholly unrelated note, Frank is intently watching a Kookaburra through the window. The Kooka is about as large as Frank. It's sitting on the Hills Hoist, which miraculously shows no sign of collapsing under the bird's weight.

Tim's tummy is fine again, btw. Thanks to everyone who asked after him! He's currently sitting between Jon and the PC keyboard, desperate for crunchy rice crackers.

Refugees

Great letter in Saturday's SMH:

I could have become one of the Australian citizens and residents being detained and/or deported. Last year I received a letter from the Department of Immigration. The letter started "Dear Ms Sutherland" and referred to "your application" and the department's regret that it had been refused. It informed me that "You are entitled to apply for a review of this decision." The letter concluded: "Should you decide not to seek a review, you should depart Australia within the current validity of your substantive or bridging visa."

I wrote in reply asking what I should do about my Australian passport, which I had by virtue of the fact that I was born in Victoria some 60 years ago of Australian parents. I was also concerned as to who would look after my cat.

What happens when such a letter is received by those with less grasp of their standing?

Emily Sutherland Largs Bay (SA)

Elsewhere in the papers:

More on Naomi Leong, the three year old born in detention. Naomi's mother, like many detainees, is seriously mentally ill. "Every time [Naomi] sees me upset and feeling sad she bangs her head against the wall. But there's nowhere I can hide. I am unstable and screaming all the time. I cannot help it."

More about the seriously mentally ill detainees neglected in Baxter.