Respect My City

I guess this blog is going to get a tad more political as time goes on. But I'll try to keep it musically related. For posts w/musical clips, videos and content, you can always visit the main hub: http://pmurraymusic.com/

Recently, the New York press has been reporting the woes of Bill Lee, father of filmmaking icon Spike Lee (Do The Right Thing, Malcom X), and, in his own right, a legendary bass-player whose career in both the Jazz and Popular music idioms spans both the decades and the gamut of big names in the music industry (Aretha Franklin and Bob Dylan, just to name two you might have heard of *note lighthearted sarcasm here*).  Up until the last three years of his roughly 44-year residency in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, his musical proceedings at home have gone on relatively untroubled and sans any civil grievance from the nearby residents on his block.  However,  since 2010, a new tenant has taken it upon herself to make a statement about the "noise" coming from her adjacent NY native.  A recent article in the Times, pointed out:

"...This year through May 23, the [NYPD] said, 17 noise complaints have been filed about the Lee residence on a street called Washington Park. Most, if not all, were called in by a woman in the brownstone next door who moved in three years ago. “It wakes us up constantly,” said the woman, who spoke on the condition that her name not be printed because she did not want to aggravate her already strained relations with Mr. Lee’s wife, and did not want to be seen as a complainer...."
-- Corey Kilgannon, NY Times 5/31/13

I'm going to be as delicate as I can about this, but wish me luck. The bottom line is this: by all NYC laws & standards, there is nothing wrong with what the woman who has complained is doing (being a gentrifist neo-urbanite, sadly, is not a crime).  However, what no law enforcement official is able to say publicly - and what no long-time resident of the multicultural wonderland that is Brooklyn can openly admit to the press - is that there is always a give and take when it comes to neighbors and neighborly understanding.  I live in Breezy Point, Queens, a private - and relatively quiet - cooperative community with closely situated houses on both sides of mine, and I practice my music regularly.  Because my neighbors know of my profession, and my family and I have built good will with their families over the years, there is never a problem with me vocalizing, referencing records, or playing instruments, regardless of the hour.  A healthy neighborhood should be chock full of such understanding and mutual coexistence.  What newer residents of gentrified Brooklyn have done (besides raise property value, displace native New Yorkers, and create a modern-day cultural & ethnic Diaspora) is inset a highly privatized and distinctly suburban quality of life into a major metropolis, the likes of which has not been seen here - nor been required - since the turn of the century, at least.  It's Main Street USA trying to force its way onto Fulton Street, BK, and I could care less about what the statistical benefits or quality of life enhancements that come with this kind of a movement.  It's.  Not.  Right.

Mutual coexistence in a large, portioned city with myriads of cultures and countless varieties of lifestyles means that when you get the chance to live here, you learn the ropes just like the rest of us had to, and if the jazz player next door is working on a show piece till 2AM, you make light, humorous conversation about it the next day with your friends over brunch and move on.  There is something to be said for New York's make-it-or-break-it reputation, and just because Stable Mabel from Normalville, Ohio has a preconceived notion of how she wants her new hometown to act and what kinds of people she wants to live next door to, doesn't mean she's entitled to get it (no disrespect the the good people of Ohio, but you get my drift).  Call the NYPD all you want, if Lee's mortgage notes are paid on time (or if the house is already paid up), and I were him, I'd file a tort claim against this woman on the grounds of aesthetic and cultural coercion.  Long story short, baby girl next door needs to have several seats and turn up the volume on her HGTV DVR programming.  Legends are legends, Brooklyn is Brooklyn, and damned though I may be for loving my city as fiercely as I do, as we like to say here, "It is what it is."  DEAL.

God = Love. Period.

In regards to Christian public figures who have taken to vilifying Jason Collins for his statements (and the subsequent backlash against them), there are two major points to consider: One, The issue of judgment here does not come from the perspective of deciding whether or not people were condemning Jason's lifestyle. The more pertinent issue of judgment arose when they took it upon themselves to publicly categorize what makes a proper Christian and what doesn't.  As public professionals, I'm sure they've had to create and maintain friendships and business partnerships with people from all walks of life, and I'm sure as self-professed Christians, they've had no problem doing so.  So again, bigotry is not what is at stake here.  What is at stake - and what I take issue with - is a mortal's decision to take it upon himself to determine how other Christians should live and how they shouldn't.

I feel that anyone who claims to be a Christian who stands in judgment or condemnation of Jason Collins (e.g. any Out public figure who practices Christianity) or anyone who calls themselves a Christian but has pointed a finger at people like Chris Broussard for his assessment in this case has regressed from any real teachings of Christ Himself.  Hypothetically speaking, as human beings - all sinful in some way, by Biblical definition - not one of us is truly equipped to lay down a judgment upon another man's life based on his own Human nature.  I was raised Roman Catholic, and for a major portion of my life, I was lead to believe that coming Out and living an open lifestyle would lead me to a life of depression, fear, hatred, and isolation.  What I've come to realize is that Love, in its most unconditional form, is a Truth that supersedes any teaching put down in any book, the Bible included.

Secondly, it is crucially important to remember what the Bible is on a concrete, historical platform, and how it may be interpreted.  Please don't misunderstand, I believe that the Bible, like so many other religious treatises, contains numerous invaluable lessons on how to live right, but the the contradictions that exist between testimony, law, and the collections' historical context serve as proof - to me, at least - that taking this Book at its Word is an almost surefire way to completely miss its point (namely, from a Christian perspective, Salvation & Freedom).  So much of what has been written down in regards to ethics was based on the tribulations & socio-political climate of the times, and numerous edicts were based in previously existing philosophies on morality; Leviticus, the book from which Scripture damning homosexual behavior primarily generates, is arguably one of the books in the Old Testament/Torah most culpable of this fact.  Roman Catholic exegetes (i.e. Vatican-sanctioned historians of Biblical history and Christian archeology) have consented to the fact that stories such as The Creation and The Flood were cultivated from earlier accounts of these events with cited sources in documented pagan mythology.

Keeping a critical eye open while reviewing & researching the Bible allows for the intelligent individual to truly benefit from its teachings: God may have had a hand in the creation of the Bible, but it was Man - sin-laden, error-prone, red-blooded & corporeal MAN - that decided the outcome of the Book so many of us read & study today.  Jesus may have been The Unseen Guest at The Council of Carthage (397 AD), but it was under the mortal supervision of high-ranking Roman Catholic clergy from various parts of the known World that the final standard version of this Anthology was created.  Please remember that the history of the Roman Catholic Church is an institution filled with as much conflict and corruption as it is filled with great strides in helping the poor and leading people to the Faith; these are the same men who, on a whim, laid the groundwork for generations of future conflict and debate over Christ's teachings.  There is so much apocrypha and Scripture that was left out of the Bible simply because there were testimonies and stories that these men just didn't like; no spiritual influence, no divinely-inspired rejection.  They just didn't agree with what they read, so they left it out.

My point is, how is it that Christians - or people who deem themselves as such - allow themselves to be swayed to the point of prejudice and violent hatred by a collection of books that was written by hands who had as much free will & were just as privy to making mistakes as you or me?  When I see Scripture citing God's "hatred" or "jealousy" for any peoples or ideas, it doesn't line up with what Christ was ultimately trying to say.  If Christ was sent as One who was to essentially reboot teachings laid down in the Old Covenant by teaching the Law of Unconditional Love, how could anyone loving anyone else, in any capacity, be considered Sin, unless it were taking away their God-given right to love freely?  And how could someone as respectable, forthright, and humble as Jason Collins be considered a non-Christian or an unrepentant sinner and damned to Hell in the eyes of a God who, according to Scripture, only wants us to be free to Love and serve mankind?  Granted, none of us know enough about him to back up these claims, but it seems to me that Jason's a good guy; so says his family, teammates, friends, and countless fans.  We'll never know how much of the Bible was completely inspired by the Divine; what I do know is that Christ and His teachings are based way more on Truth and morality - concepts that Jason Collins seems adamant about upholding - than laws & religion - concepts that have been misconstrued and exploited from the beginning of our known history.

The First Amendment of the American Constitution most certainly guarantees that people like Chris Broussard are allowed to say - within reason - whatever they want, to whomever they want, at whatever time they want.  But Scripture points out that while Christ was adamant in teaching His followers how to live a more righteous life, His more important and crucial message was teaching the law of Unconditional Love, and it is hard to tell through comments like Broussard's whether or not that unconditional love is something self-righteous Christians can actually exemplify, since it is evident that they are preoccupied with an assessment of the Christian righteousness of others.  I hope Jason Collins completely ignores the judgmental statements thrown at him by ignorant men, seeing as how only God + The Universe can make the final call in matters of salvation and human happiness.  And something tells me that God isn't going to need to reference pages, or chapters, or sentences or quotes in anyone's Bible, Torah, Qu'ran, or any other religious tome of note to decide whether or not a man from any walk of life is worthy of these things.

I think it is fitting to close these thoughts by quoting a poignant post I saw recently:

"I believe in morality, which is doing right regardless of what I am told...not in religion, which is doing what I am told regardless of what is right.  You're welcome to your own interpretation of the Bible and of politics, of course, but for me, I need more than "the Bible says so" to justify certain things in this world and certainly to judge them."