Under God

You'd thing that Cubano, but it's not what I saw. Everyone just blaming everyone else but themselves was all I witnessed.

JB

 

so you were a jailbird figures

 

You're a little behind LS. I know it's hard, but please try to keep up.

JB

 

The Playground
A conversation about “under God.”

By William F. Buckley Jr.

“Excuse me, sir. Are you Maureen’s father?”

John Dickson looked over at the children playing on the school playground. He ducked, but the football grazed his questioner, bloodying his nose. “Can you use my handkerchief?” Dickson brought it out from his pocket.

“No. No thanks. I’ll be okay. I’m a doctor, by the way.” He extended his hand.

“If you mean her,” Dickson pointed at the girl on the swing, “yes, that’s Maureen Dickson, my daughter.”

“Well, John — may I call you John? — you saw the newspapers this morning, the Supreme Court refusing to take my case against the school our kids attend.”

“Yes, I read the whole story here” — he pulled the paper up from his bicycle bag. “You’re mad because the Court refused to forbid the recitation of the pledge with the phrase, ‘under God’ in it.”

“Yes. What I’m wondering is, would you be willing to enter the case as a plaintiff, since your little girl there, Maureen, has to recite the same pledge?”

“I forget. Why wouldn’t the Supreme Court see your case through?”

“Because Sally — my daughter — can’t be represented by me.”

“Why not? You’re the father.”

“Well . . . I don’t live with Sally’s mother. And under the law, if the parents aren’t married, the mother has legal rights, and her mother is — a Christian.”

“You don’t live with Sally’s mother, you’re divorced — ”

“Actually, we were never married. By the way, I’m also a lawyer.”

“And you’re against the pledge of allegiance because it includes, ‘under God’?”

“Right. None of that business of a state invoking God!”

“You took a pledge when you became a doctor?”

“Yes, of course, the Hippocratic oath, modern form.”

“The Hippocratic oath has you saying you ‘must not play at God.’ Are you going to ask the Supreme Court to declare that oath unconstitutional?”

“Now wait a minute, Dickson, I just wanted to know if you would agree to serve as a plaintiff on behalf of your daughter, Maureen — ”

“But I have to figure out what you’re trying to do for your girl, before I decide whether I want to help you.” John Dickson reached for the newspaper. “You said when interviewed after you presented your case that appearing before the Supreme Court had been a great experience but . . .” — he looked down at the text — “‘But the experience of a lifetime is to love your kid and be with her.’ But it isn’t the court that’s keeping you from the experience of a lifetime. What’s keeping you is you have yet to marry the mother.”

“The fact I didn’t marry Sandra has nothing to do with the pledge of allegiance.”

“But you’re attempting to take the pledge of allegiance away from all the students at your daughter’s school, and all students everywhere. And it says here that your wife — I mean, the mother of your child — is in favor of her little girl reciting the full pledge, and of course that California law gives her, not the absent-from-the-house father, standing in a court trial. Are you trying to get that law changed too? And while you’re at it, Newdow, you intend to do something about the Hippocratic oath?”

“What about the Hippocratic oath?”

“The provision in it that says you mustn’t play God.”

“Who says I was trying to play God?”

“I say it. You impregnate a woman who gives birth to the child, you refuse to marry her or live with her, you protest the policies of the school the girl goes to, and you want to impose your values on the school. So that all the little boys in that school will grow up like you, a doctor who violates his Hippocratic oath, and refuses to live up to the responsibilities of a father? I call that playing God.”

They both ducked, avoiding the speed ball that whizzed by.

 

A conversation about “under God.”

By stu, with very few apologies to William F. Buckley Jr.

“Excuse me, sir. Are you Maureen’s father?”

John Dickson looked over at the children playing on the school playground. He ducked, but the football grazed his questioner, bloodying his nose. “Can you use my handkerchief?” Dickson brought it out from his pocket.

“No. No thanks. I’ll be okay. I’m a doctor, by the way.” He extended his hand.

“If you mean her,” Dickson pointed at the girl on the swing, “yes, that’s Maureen Dickson, my daughter.”

“Well, John — may I call you John? — you saw the newspapers this morning, the Supreme Court refusing to take my case against the school our kids attend.”

“Yes, I read the whole story here” — he pulled the paper up from his bicycle bag. “You’re mad because the Court refused to forbid the recitation of the pledge with the phrase, ‘under God’ in it.”

“Yes. What I’m wondering is, would you be willing to enter the case as a plaintiff, since your little girl there, Maureen, has to recite the same pledge?”

“I forget. Why wouldn’t the Supreme Court see your case through?”

“Because Sally — my daughter — can’t be represented by me.”

“Why not? You’re the father.”

“Well . . . I don’t live with Sally’s mother. And under the law, if the parents aren’t married, the mother has legal rights, and her mother is — a Christian.”

“You don’t live with Sally’s mother, you’re divorced — ”

“Actually, we were never married. Sally’s mother didn’t want to marry. She wanted to remain single . She maintains "Life is complicated" and that she " was not walking with the Lord when my daughter was conceived." I still cannot get my head around that idea. By the way, I’m also a lawyer.”

“And you’re against the pledge of allegiance because it includes, ‘under God’?”

“Right. None of that business of a state invoking God!”

“You took a pledge when you became a doctor?”

“Yes, the Hippocratic oath, modern form.”

“The Hippocratic oath has you saying you ‘must not play at God.’ Are you going to ask the Supreme Court to declare that oath unconstitutional?”

“It is not necessary. Most Hippocratic oaths, modern form, make no reference to God. I just wanted to know if you would agree to serve as a plaintiff on behalf of your daughter, Maureen — ”

“But I have to figure out what you’re trying to do for your girl, before I decide whether I want to help you.” John Dickson reached for the newspaper. “You said when interviewed after you presented your case that appearing before the Supreme Court had been a great experience but . . .” — he looked down at the text — “‘But the experience of a lifetime is to love your kid and be with her.’ But it isn’t the court that’s keeping you from the experience of a lifetime. What’s keeping you is you have yet to marry the mother.”

“The fact is Sandra doesn’t want to marry and that has nothing to do with the pledge of allegiance.”

“I am not trying to take the pledge of allegiance away from the students at my daughter’s school, or students everywhere. I am trying to have it returned to the wording which the original author gave it. The mother of my child is in favour of her reciting the amended pledge, that of course California law gives her, but not the unwillingly-absent-from-the-house father, which makes an unfair and one sided standing in a court trial. I would very much like to get that law changed too, if nothing else but for the sake of fair-mindedness and balance. And if you cared to get off your high horse and do your homework before making these misleading statements Dickson, you might also care to consider why the Hippocratic oath had to be altered from the classical form to the modern form.

“What about Hippocratic oath ,classical form ?”

For your information, many physicians consider the words ‘must not play at God.’ As inappropriate , meaningless and wrong just as ‘under God’ is. 90% of Hippocratic oath modern forms taken, hold no convenant with or to a deity at all.
It all looks a little silly when you consider the classical form, there by the grace of Hippocrates the father of medicine himself.
It requires doctors to “ swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant: .” Superstitious pagan God worshipping has no place in medicine any more than children being required to submit to being “under a God” of modern day versions.

“I apologize for jumping to conclusions and for pre-judging you . Although you impregnate a woman who gives birth to the child, you are unable to marry her or live with her - by her own free will. You protest the policies of the school the girl goes to, and you are told you have no right to. Any little boys in that school who grow up like you, to be a doctor upholding through honor his outdated Hippocratic oath, and would live up to the responsibilities of a father, but is stopped from doing so, gets my support! I call that playing fairly..”

This time Newdow ducked, avoiding the speed ball that whizzed by, knocking Dickson out cold. Dickson was fortunate though. A doctor, who bore no grudges, was close at hand.

 

lol

 

In this country, the mother of bastard children are given custodial rights before the father, unless the father has gained them legally.

The father may have wanted to marry the mother, but since he got her pregnant, what he wants is secondary to the mother in nearly all cases.

The moral of the story is that if a man wants full and equal custody (which usually doesn't happen even with married divorced couples when there is conflict of how to raise a child) don't knock up a woman until you are married to her.

______________________________________

I don't doubt that many doctors would prefer to use an oath lacking the word God. I don't doubt there are many atheistic doctors.

Are they the majority? Nope. Majority rules. Besides, they are adults (at least they should be) and capable of saying what they want. So too, children can do what their parents say, and not recite the pledge, nor recite the word God from the pledge. It is their choice, no one is forcing anyone to say the word God, nor is their punishment for not doing so.

______________________________________

The pledge was amended in 1954 (not 1950 as I said before and you corrected me) and now you want it amended again.

And you want the courts to amend it now?

Did the courts amend it in the first place?

Nope, it was congress.

Why don't the atheists lobby in congress to change it back?

Because they would lose, you see, congress represents all the citizens and voters, and the majority likes the word God used in the pledge.

Is the word God constitutional? We will eventually find out when someone can bring a technically clean case to the court.

Then, if the court does remove the word God from the pledge and money (which I seriously doubt), we will see if the majority will ask their congressmen and senators to sponsor legislation to amend the constitution.

Imagine an amendment to the constitution, allowing the word God to be used. Not hard to imagine in a country where 92% of the people report a belief in God, according to Fox news. (92% would get you an amendment passed, no problem).

Oh the horrors for the atheists, the nightmares they will have over the word God when they know they won't be able to override the wishes of 92%.

_________________________________________

Regarding your apologies to Mr. Buckley, he is deserving of them to be sure.

 

"92%" of the people don't have a freaking clue and are brain-dead..

(what does that say for you??)

thats why we now have the GW's in charge and filing a lawsuit is akin to hitting the lottery..

you wanna hang your hat on the "wisdom" of the common people...

Ha! What a joke!! :-/

 

Your opinion is 92% have no clue. Ok, you have expressed your opinion.

Ever hear of the concept of majority rules?

All you have to do is provide proof of damages, not opinion of damages, to overturn the situation.

 

The perpetual problem IS people are too persuaded by emotional rhetoric and clever oratory, and completely lacking in extraordinary merits of critical thinking and reason...

and NO one does not need proof of anything, emotional appeal will will do nicely and is much more effective..

PROOF... EVIDENCE.. lol the common man has no conception of..

afterall, the common man has no appreciation for genuine proof or reasonable argument...

EMOTION thats what drives "him"!

in short they (you) are fools!!

HA!