[TheRealThing]

Thomas Jefferson excised all things from the Gospels that could not be explained by reason. This was his "Bible." This is Deistic, if one grasps Deism. Your analysis of Jefferson is stunted, and in error. One need only look around Monticello for a few minutes to see that the man was deeply influenced by the Enlightenment.

Essential liberty, freedom of conscience, these concepts do not invalidate that a man must stand before God to give an account. They suggest, that inasmuch as possible, a man is to be left alone from governmental and church intrusion in the exercise of free moral agency. It is, in fact, to recognize in humankind that which God ordained: choice unhindered. Nowhere have I suggested that the choices themselves are equal in goodness or rightness before God.

Read up a little bit huh? Jefferson was as I suspect you are, suffering somewhat of a shortfall in his spiritual acumen. Such matters as I have pointed out in the past are unattainable to the secular mind. He nonetheless bowed in deference to the sovereignty of God as his writings clearly demonstrate. I've already pointed out he was not an evangelical, but thanks for restating the obvious. He was not deist. One thing he didn't do was argue against the Godly tenets of Christianity, though that is the nature of the argument you have continually put forth. Denying His influence on the minds of the founders is a form of heresy in my view, and serves no purpose other than easing the minds of those who like Jefferson, cannot seem to make themselves surrender to the Lordship of Christ. But by all means, feel free to push on with it.

In fact let's cut to the chase on this rabbit hunt. Here is the full revelation of the religious affiliations of every one of the signers of The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, and The Constitutional Convention of 1787. http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fa...igion.html

As I said, such information was and is a matter of public record, read it and weep. It's a bit harder to make your case when you can't just pick on the shortfalls of only one man, and that as seen through the biased prism of the liberal, is it not? Shoot the messenger, never fails for the liberal.