


Extemporaneous musings, occasionally poetic, about life in its richly varied dimensions, especially as relates to history, theology, law, literature, science, by one who is an attorney, ordained minister, historian, writer, and African American.







CONCEPTIONS OF JESUS CHRIST
Jesus did not condemn the beliefs of others. Belief is a combination of faith, understanding and culture.
Jesus Christ's disciples, however, did condemn and still do condemn to this very day in 2019. If believers yet wrestle with the mystery, wonder, glory of Christ Jesus, there can be no doubt that unbelievers surely do as well. I have been on both sides of the question: believer and unbeliever. Therefore, I was forced to "work out my own salvation with fear and trembling."
So had my forebears done before me in the hellfire of Mississippi. So must you do for your own salvation.
It is remarkable that, and how, one man whom some claim did not exist could claim so large a number of followers, literature, monuments, redeemed souls, and could liberate so many enslaved people against such powerful odds with so few friends and with fewer resources!
My African American people are prime examples of the power of Jesus to free, liberate, consecrate! History, my love, absolves Jesus. It was not the Council of Nicea, 325 AD, that "created" Jesus; rather it "crowned" its common conception of an already existing Jesus Christ .
Conceptions are beliefs based on your faith in God, understanding of nature, inside confines of culture.
Not only is my existence, presence, puissance, progeny a gift of God, it is also a product of my forebears' and my parents' conceptual beliefs in Jesus, whose lives, teachings, loves, works, abided their beliefs!
If other people have wrought evil and wickedness behind the cloak of Christ, as the millions have done, they have now their reward and shall have it again in eternity, say all African religious creeds preceding that of Jesus Christ and especially including their descendant Christ's!
REMEMBERING DADDY AND FRISKY FOR FATHERS' DAY
I was four years old when Daddy took me down Electric Street to view a litter of puppies at Tamp's house, a few doors east of our home. I saw the mother with her brood of puppies, but could hardly decide which one to pick. Daddy said get this one! He's more frisky than the others . So I did select him and "Frisky" became his name.
We grew up together , Frisky faster than me. Dogs' years equal seven man-years, I was told. Any way, at age eight we moved from Electric Street to Big Bend Boulevard in Kirkwood, near Crestwood, across from Oak Hill Cemetery, next door to Burton's Flower Shop. We lived in a house surrounded by woods, a stream, fields . A great place for kids to play and explore and for a dog to romp unfettered by fences.
One day we noticed that Frisky had not returned home as usual from his daily runabouts. One day grew into two and two into three. On the fourth day, I happened to see Daddy coming from the south across the fallow fields carrying Frisky in his arms. My heart leaped!
Was Frisky dead? I rushed into the backyard to see him. Daddy had found him laying in the field, very badly beaten up, his flopping ears torn off in places; his throat mauled and his white breast blood-stained, and his jet black coat was rent as well. He was barely alive. Daddy took him to a veterinarian. A little while later Frisky was frisky again.
We never knew what in the world had happened to Frisky; whether he had been whipped by a pack of dogs or by a single dog. We went along with the dog park theory as Frisky had been in enough one-on-one dogfights for us to know that he knew how to deport himself in battle. Nor did we ever learn how he had been so badly pummeled.
A little bit later at age twelve, we bought our family home in Rockhill, Missouri , near Steger Junior High School, an area that was black middle class, and distinguished by fenced single family home yards .
Here our attempts to confine Frisky, who was accustomed to unabated freedom proved futile . The mailman would not deliver the mail, because of his fear of being bitten by our family dog, Frisky.
Daddy turned to me and said "Well son. We can have him put down; or we can take him far away and let him loose in the woods . He can eat squirrels and rabbits." I opted for the woods, given the other option.
Next day, me, Daddy and Frisky drove far west of Kirkwood about seventy miles into the woods. We put Frisky out and left him there to do for self. About a week later, Mr. Burton, our former lessor, called to say that Frisky had returned. He asked that we come and get him.
I was happy, sad, and amazed that Frisky could find his way all the way back home from all the woods and traffic! Daddy said dogs had strong homing instincts. Evidently! We fed him. Played with him. Then tried to find a secure way to tie him up, lest he again escape to frighten the mailman. Long story short, it didn't work out. So once again me, Daddy and Frisky piled into the car and headed for the humane society in Maplewood. As Frisky departed the car for a final time, beside Daddy on a leash, he looked back at me crying, stoically. Then soldiered on.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brush%20arbor?fbclid=IwAR0Bs_M_wPu3xpwQJObdydgtex53i0iOJhWGoStSlKSM4DY3p6ItJGQpCz8

"Justice Brandeis described his legal practice before ascending to the Supreme Court as 'counsel to the situation' . In his view, the lawyer was more than an adversarial advocate. The lawyer was a counselor , a negotiator, a problem solver who sought to advance the client's objectives while maintaining the highest standards of ethics and serving the public interest.
"At the Senate confirmation hearing on his Supreme Court nomination, Brandeis was berated for serving as 'counsel to the situation ' instead of counsel to the client. Did he not have a duty, he was asked, to represent vigorously his client's interest, even if the interests of other parties and the public suffered? In some specific instances. Brandeis may have taken the concept too far (compromising his obligation first and foremost to serve the client), but I fully agreed with his broader conception: first, in representing clients, a member of the bar has an obligation to uphold the standards of integrity and inform the client of the public interest considerations at stake, and, second, a truly outstanding lawyer is able to represent a client on a broad range of issues, calling in specialists, as needed, but also capable of mastering a set of complex interrelated issues and moving nimbly among legal disciplines. The kind of legal practice defined by Brandeis has been my aspiration as a lawyer. My informal advice to Bill Levitt while I was at the Dilworth firm, that his early policy of racial exclusion from the Levittown projects was unwise and in conflict with emerging national policy against racial discrimination in housing, illustrates the point. To distinguish my nuanced interpretation of the Brandeis philosophy, I have coined the term 'counsel for the situation.' I would be counsel to the client but willing and able to discuss any situation.
P.367, "Counsel for the Situation," COUNSEL FOR THE SITUATION, RESHAPING THE LAW TO REALIZE AMERICA 'S PROMISE (2010) by William T. Coleman with Donald T. Bliss
As I approach the end of his simply masterful personal historical legal autobiography of the remarkable Philadelphia lawyer, William T. Coleman, which I urge all lawyers to read, his substitution of the prepositions 'to' for 'for' displayed his knowledge, not only the power of nuance, but the quiet impact of precision upon public perceptions.