Ok, can anyone tell me what the “original intent of the First Amendment” is?  I can’t seem to wrap my head around it.  Do they want a state religion like in some other countries? 

Hmmm....which religion then I wonder?  Which Denomination?  I know tons of people True Believers who wouldn’t stand the government endorsing the Catholic church, so I wonder which denimonation will get the honors?

No no no no no no no no no no no no no no noooooo!!!

“We pledge to exert our influence toward a return to the original intent of the First Amendment and dispel the myth of the separation of church and state,“ it says.

Ok, can anyone tell me what the “original intent of the First Amendmentâ€? is?  I can’t seem to wrap my head around it.

The Passage in Question: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The original intent, as I recall from my reading, was actually pretty narrow. It was designed to keep any one church (like The Church of England) from gaining power and influence over other judeo-christian sects. That’s what they were actually worried about. One quote I recall about the 1st was that “It provides freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.”

I’ve always wished it was more specifically secular but it really isn’t.

KPG - Right, that’s what I thought.  Which means that there is a really strong misunderstanding of the First Amendment on the part of these people (I assume). 

I was just wondering what they could possibly mean, since obviously the original intent of the First Amendment was to protect religious freedom from governmental control as much if not more than to protect government from religious influence.

Since the previous statement seems to benefit relgion, what could the rabid fundies here be trying to say?  The First Amendment was originally supposed to allow religion to control government, but not the other way around?  If this is the case, they should remember that when government is controlled by religion, the two really become inseperable (and indicernible).

I personally don’t have any trouble understanding why it’s quite ok for a private citizen to post the 10 commandments on their lawn (or car, or any of their own, personal property), but government should not be allowed to post them on public property, since that is purchased, and maintained at taxpayer’s expense.  I can’t understand why this is such a tough concept to understand. 

I know that the ignorance of the religious zealots makes them easily lead by the unscrupulous and those with political axes to grind, like Roy Moore.  I guess I’m just ashamed that so many people are willfully ignorant.

Ok, gotta stop, I’m getting off topic and beginning to rant.

“This is not a political disagreement. This is a religious disagreement,� he said.

I’m just glad one of them comes out and admits it.

“He is the chairman of this party,�

No wonder y’all are scared.
According to http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html the US has 10% population with no religion, Oz has 15%, Canada 16%, UK 23%, NZ 26% and Netherlands 41%.
What has that got to do with anything? Nothing really - I just wanted to know.

LuckyJohn: According to http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html the US has 10% population with no religion, Oz has 15%, Canada 16%, UK 23%, NZ 26% and Netherlands 41%.

Once again, Holland proves to rock. 

You know, I’ve a recurring argument with a few shipmates about what truly defines a terrorist organization and I’ve always heard remarks about earth-based groups such as PETA, ALF, and ELF, but to be perfectly honest, I’ve always considered the GOP to be one of the largest.