As date with Supreme Court nears, man seeking pledge ban is relentless - Part 2

Mr. Michael Newdow says "I'm for the country as much as anybody,'' said Newdow, 50. ``But I'm for the Constitution." Wait a moment. Take a look at my first comment in my last post: "When it comes interpreting The Bill of Rights (and other such documents), you must interpret them by the language (and the use thereof) during the time period written. In other words - stop trying to place our particular modern meaning of a word to a word that does not mean that specific meaning b/c of the time period it was originally used (the word meant something different than it does today)." When you look at old documents (such as the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or anything else), you need to read the document in the vernacular the authors wrote. When the authors penned the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights), they meant that the government has no jurisdiction dictating what the religious realm can or can not do. They did not mean that the religious realm can not have an influence on government. Think for a moment about our laws. From where do laws come? Opinions? I say, 'no.' From where does moral conduct come? Opinions? I say, 'no.' If that were true, then how do we know which 'opinion' is right? How would we know what is right and what is not right? (See previous post). If our laws are based on opinions and not absolutes, then what validates them? Or what legitimizes them? My point? Religion must have an influence. Whether you want to admit it or not, your philosophical/theological standpoint influences everything you do. Whether you believe in God or whether you are an atheist. Atheism is a religion. Just as any Theism is a religion. The basic idea of religion is a belief in "powers that control human destiny." Most Atheists still believe they are in control of their own destiny or fate - of which they place themselves as a god - thereby they can not be an atheist, but an agnostic theist. err.. something like that. You could look at Mr. Michael Newdow (and others like him) as an oxymoron. He's trying to take out the very thing he (indirectly) claims to be - god. Why is 'In God We Trust' so disturbing to him? Can't he just say, 'I trust in myself' ? Just another course in food for thought.... (I may say something more later)