Closed Heart, Closed Mind

'Cause when you close your heart, then you close your mind

-from Man in the Mirror by Siedah Garrett and Glen Ballard

A Closed Heart is an attitude that assumes a group of people is evil simply because they are that group. With a Closed Heart, you'll believe anything negative, demeaning, or inflammatory about the group your heart is closed to. You can't see the humanity in an individual from that group.

As a result, the corresponding Closed Mind can't accept anything less than the demonization and dehumanization of an individual from that group. Those with this mental condition readily believe anything that supports their Closed Heart, and vehemently (sometimes violently) reject anything that contradicts their suppositions.

So. My fellow Christians. Let's take a heart check, shall we?

When you post political/social memes, articles, etc. do those postings subtlety imply that, 'This group is unabashedly evil'?

Don't lie – I've seen some of your un-credible posts about Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Liberals, Black Lives Matter, etc. etc.…

And when you read some of the political/social meme or story or article your friends post, do you quickly nod in agreement, with either silent approval or a quick tap of the Like button? Or do you pause, and say to yourself something like

Well, this is a gross, and therefore inaccurate, generalization.

Or

Huh. I know memes are reductive by nature, but this is obviously not true of everyone who self-identifies with the group they're talking about.

Or

Wow. I'm not a [insert political party/ideology here] and I detest this candidate,  but this story is just…something's not right.

We know God doesn't want us to cultivate a Closed Heart. We know it's not His Will for us to have Closed Minds.

We know, and yet all too often we take the easy way, posting our posts then crying foul when someone we don't agree with does the same. Let's stop playing around and start doing The Hard Work. Let's resist our impulse to close our hearts.

Just Out of Reach

I recently deleted a blog from my list of internet favorites.

You see, during the most recent presidential campaign, I was continually reminded of the biblical concept of one's ears being tickled. I was mis-remembering 2 Timothy 4:3 (NIV):

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

It seems an apt description of many Americans. They only want their ears scratched, their tummies rubbed, their worldview justified. As they continue to be indulged, they lose interest in learning and growth. They become content, if not proud, to be willfully unteachable.

That blog? As informative as it is, I found myself reaching for it as a sort of comfort food, a type of belly rub. I was getting my ears scratched. It seemed best to push that blog beyond my immediate reach.

Lord, please do not let me become unteachable. Cultivate in me a heart of learning, a desire to grow.

And you? Do you frequent your favorite sites simply to join Your Team in taunts and cheers? Are you certain you aren't willful unteachable? Do you need to push some of the media you ingest beyond the reach of your fingertips?

Heroes and Villains

The article was about the memorial service for an officer who was killed in the line of duty. Popped from the page, an inset, if that's the proper term, was this quote:

I recoiled in horror and rage.

When you come against law enforcement, you come against God? No no no no no.

Because this is the type of attitude that allows bad cops – the drug stealing, child prostitute engaging, compliant suspect killing bad cops – to thrive and survive in police departments.

This was this attitude that gave law enforcement permission to turn the other way when Emmett Till was murdered.

This was this attitude that gave law enforcement the confidence to lie about the circumstances of Sam Dubose's death.

This was this attitude that allowed law enforcement to shoot a man who was lying on the ground, hands in the air, compliant.

Do not mis-take me – the majority of law enforcement officers are heroes,

Committed to serving their communities, willing to help anyone who is in need.

But like any other group of people, law enforcement is not a monolith. There are those who terrorize the communities they have sworn to serve, sullying the badge with their antics.

There is absolutely no way that coming against them¹

Is equivalent to going against God.

1. Lest anyone attempt to mis-take me further, I am not advocating violence against law enforcement. If you are in the midst of committing a crime and you shoot at an officer, you should expect to get shot at. What I do advocate is speaking against those who are doing wrong. Small is the peace and miniscule are the freedoms when the menace to society is bound in the authority and power of law enforcement.

Will the Press Remain Independent?

I notice that Trump's definition of "fake news" is 'Anything that makes me look bad'. For him, the only legitimate news is a story that presents him in a favorable light. There is no room for critique, criticism, and in some cases, verifiable fact.

On the campaign trail, he refused to give press passes to journalists who reported stories he didn't like; he's ditched his press pool on several occasions; he refused to answer a journalist's question during a press conference, citing a story that ran days earlier.

Would this have been acceptable if Obama did it?

Would it have been acceptable for Obama to censure media who had printed negative stories about him? To refuse to answer questions from a media outlet because of a story they ran two days earlier?

Of course not.

In which case, if it would be unacceptable for Obama, why should it be acceptable for Trump?

**********

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.

So watch for abridgement to come in the form of an executive order or some other Executive Branch mechanism that does not require congressional approval.

And if Congress is willing to entertain a law that effectively abridges the freedom of the press, our country should probably get a new name. The First Amendment to the Constitution is rebar in the foundation of the United States – to countermand it is to begin to transform the country into something entirely new.

About Some of Those Responses to Congressman Lewis

On Twitter,

Rob Schneider,

an actor who (according to IMDB) was roughly five years old at the time of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s death,

Told Congressman John Lewis,

who marched with Rev. Dr. King, and likely knew him personally,

That Rev. Dr. King didn't give in to his anger or hurt, which was how he achieved his accomplishments.

Huh.

I think

A man who knew Rev. Dr. King personally (Lewis),

likely has a better grasp of Rev. Dr. King's motivations,

than a man who probably didn't spend time with him (Schneider).

Also

Is it not possible – nay, probable –

That a little bit of anger and hurt might've been stirred into that motivation pot?

Rev. Dr. King was human, after all.

**********

In a radio interview (or was it an address? I'm not really clear on that point), The Governor of Maine said Congressman Lewis should thank the GOP for ending slavery. Specifically,

It was Abraham Lincoln that freed the slaves. It was Rutherford B. Hayes and Ulysses S. Grant that fought against Jim Crow. A simple thank you would suffice.

Uh-huh.

The GOP's abandonment of Reconstruction after little more than a decade,

Resulted in the proliferation Jim Crow laws, and consequently,

The need for the Civil Rights movement.

So shouldn't it be

Thank you, GOP, for being less than half-assed about black equality in the first place?

Put a Period on It

If you can't say Black Lives Matter with a period at the end,

If you have to add All Lives Matter,

What I hear is

I cannot aver that your life is important in and of itself;

I cannot, for a brief instant, celebrate your existence;

I must I must I must see you in reference to someone else;

You cannot simply be.

**********

Recently, the City of Biloxi, Mississippi sent a tweet reminding folks that city offices would be closed for "Great Americans Day".

That's Martin Luther King Day to the rest of us.

Turns out, for the past 30 years, the city has proclaimed the third Monday in January as a day to honor not only Dr. King but also, "…other great Americans who have made important contributions to the birth, growth, and evolution of this country."

Thanks to Marc Bernardin and Andrew Kaczynski for this photo

There could be no celebration dedicated solely to Dr. King; his achievements could not be seen as valuable in and of themselves. He had to be put into a pantheon of unnamed others, referenced against anonymity. He could not simply be.

Examining a Charge of Hypocrisy

Soon after the election, a US fashion designer called on all US designers to boycott the soon-to-be First Lady, declaring they should not give her their products to wear.

One of my Facebook Folk called the designer's stance an example of liberal hypocrisy.

Which got me thinking…Is it?

In one corner is the designer. Her opposition is based on the actions/behavior of the president-elect. She does not want him to be supported, however peripherally. She calls for her peers to refuse service to an individual and their family based on the individual's actions.

In another corner are the pizza parlor owners who, when asked, noted they would refuse to cater a hypothetical same-sex wedding. Their opposition is based on their religious beliefs. The sexuality of the hypothetical couple is an affront to the owners' faith, and thus cannot be supported, however peripherally.

Thus, we have

A refusal to serve an individual (and their family) based on the individual's actions

versus

A refusal to serve an individual (and their family) based on the individual's existence.

The basis of refusal is different. What someone has done compared to what someone is.

If the designer had encouraged her peers to boycott everyone who voted for the president-elect, or everyone affiliated with a certain political party,

OR

If the pizza parlor owners had specified an action or actions which would cause them to hesitate to cater the hypothetical wedding (for example, the couple in question are consistently rude to the staff),

then an argument for hypocrisy could be made. We're comparing a Pippin to a Gala, an apple to an apple.

Instead, we have two different fruit: A reaction to an individual, and a reaction to a group of people.

I don't see a hypocrisy here.