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

DRIVE AGAINST `UNDER GOD' ONE FACET OF HIS LEGAL EFFORTS. Wow. What a crock. What is this guy smoking? 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). I have decided to change the topic from what I've just said to what I'm about to say It is typical for people to say, I'll believe in God if you can 'prove' that he exists using reason and science. But God is a foundational concept, an ultimate criterion--for believers he is the way we explain and understand everything. Therefore, he cannot be proven any more than skeptics (ie - our dear Mr. Michael Newdow) can 'prove' their foundation, their 'ultimate criterion'--namely that through reason and science we must explain and understand everything. No one can 'prove' an ultimate criterion for truth without using it (or using another one). For example, if you say, "we can only be sure of what scientific observation proves" we can ask, "how do you know that, how can you 'prove' that?" You can't. Foundational concepts are assumed, and used to understand the world we see. Therefore, the way we test one foundation over another is by asking: "which view of the universe explains rationally what we see?" That is how we test scientific theories about entities that are not observable (such as quarks)--that is also how we test faith-based worldviews, which we all have (including our dear Mr. Michael Newdow - he has faith that God does not exist). When we put the theistic (believing in God) world view up against the non-theistic world view, we see that it makes much more sense of four things we see: matter, morals, mind, music. Let's take a quick look at morals. What do we see? That we recognize some behavior as wrong absolutely, not just as a matter of opinion or taste or culture. If there is a God, the universal experience of a moral obligation, of moral outrage would be perfectly rational and expected. If there is not a God, we would not expect them at all. These things are (in a non-theistic world view) difficult to account for yet impossible to live without. When the secularist says, "well, though there's no God, some things are definitely wrong!" that means that though the Christian world view DOES lead to expect this experience and conviction, and your world view leads you to expect the opposite, you are simply going to hold to your theory anyway. But if your premise/theory--that there is no God--does not lead you to expect what we know (that some things are wrong, that some laws are unjust despite what the populace says)--why not change the premise? If God does exist, we can see that there is a true basis for morals. But if God does not exist, then what makes our morals (and thereby laws - laws are based on morals) legit? If morals are not based on absolutes (ie - God exists), then what makes one opinion more right than another? How do we know what is right? The funny thing is a person who says there is no God is asserting himself to know more than anyone else (General public assumption is 'God exists'). You also assert that without any question everyone who believes there is a God is wrong. Since you can't prove there is no God, you are at best an Agnostic b/c you can only ask 'is there a God?' The Bible says, "The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork." The Bible does not try to prove there is a God. It simply assumes He exists. The Bible then explains what and how He does the things He does. Just food for thought...