"Atheists and their organizations interpret the First Amendment their way’!"
O RLY?
"Based on the verbiage in the First Amendment, they interpret it to mean that the use of the Bible, God, or Jesus Christ in any government function is the establishment of a religion’."
In reality, it's unequivocal: government needs to back all religions (no matter how absurd they may be) or none at all.
"How wrong they are! But it serves their godless needs."
Yes, how wrong it is that you cannot establish a theocracy based on your favourite interpretation of your favourite fairy tales. Here's fifty cents. Go call someone who cares.
"Saying a prayer at a public meeting, in school or on the Court House Lawn does not "establish" a religion or promote one religion over the other, it is simply the exercise of "A" religion, free speech, and peaceable assembly; all covered and guaranteed by the First Amendment."
When it is done by private citizens. Contrary to your personal belief, there is NO law prohibiting you to pray to Jebus, Ronald McDonald, or "Bob;" as a matter of fact, such a law would be rightly ruled unconstitutional.
But when it is done by someone with governmental authority as part of a governmental function and every religion isn't represented, then it is effectively a governmental endorsement of that specific religion. Granted it may not be intended as such, but even still. The best way is to keep religion to the citizenry and out of the halls of government--exactly the way the Founding Fathers intended.
"The First Amendment does not chide the government in advance from establishing a religion as many would have you believe, because they did not need to be scolded in advance."
Wrong. It did as the Founding Fathers saw what happened with other European nations at the time (King George as the head of the Church of England, the religious conflicts in the Holy Roman Empire, and the French monarchy being directly influenced by the Roman Catholic Church). The Quebec Act 1774 had quite a bit to do with it (among other things, colonists generally saw it as an endorsement of "Popery" in the colonies)
"America was already founded by people who were of similar beliefs in just who the boss was/is, and they knew it was not them, they knew it was God!"
Funny how many of the Founding Fathers were at best nominally Christian, and today would be considered atheistic, agnostic, deist, or humanist.
"Our Forefathers were not stupid and they knew what they were doing. If they were fearful of the government starting their own religion, they would have worded the First Amendment in a completely different manner."
They WERE fearful of the church running the state, so they explicitly forbade the new American government from establishing their own religion or officially sanctioning the
"What the First Amendment says when interpreted correctly is that; lets say that I want to start a new religion called “Online Worship”, perhaps it’s not even a Christ based religion. The government is not allowed to prohibit me from doing so."
Correct. The government has no power to shut your religion down.
"This clause kept the government from favoring one religion over another, i.e., Presbyterian over Baptist, or a new religion over an old mainstream religion."
That is also correct. But it also guaranteed (and still does, by the way) for non-Christians as well. Meaning that the government cannot officially endorse any sort of Christianity over, say, Judaism, Hinduism, or Islam).
"Additionally, the government is also prohibited under the First Amendment from keeping me from the free exercise’ of my new religion in the public square, or anywhere else. This would include prayer, the Bible, the use of the name Jesus Christ, God and the reading of any scripture."
Again, there is no law prohibiting you as a citizen for doing that.
Next time, do a little research...
Edit: apologies for the double post.
