Still waiting for a source that verifies what was stated.
And so far, per usual..nada. Not a thing except prevarication, pontification, deferral and insult.
Dear KG:
The truth is, there does not need to be any contradiction in how these men or other leaders today both embrace the true meaning/message of God/Christ/the Bible
while also REJECTING the false religion and hypocrisy of imposing corrupt authority.
Whatever side someone wants to justify, they will interpret just those parts of what these men said. They were probably very fair in validating both the true parts and concepts they agreed with, while denouncing the oppressive abuses of religion including Christianity.
You can see this today in our politicians and Constitutionalists.
Like when Guiliani said he was pro-life and against abortion,
but politically he had to respect other views under the Constitution.
So you can personally be prolife while politically enforcing
Constitutional standards that don't allow prolife views to be imposed by law.
So the same arguments go on today, if a politician is
"truly prolife" or is
"prochoice"
and people disagree by citing whatever this person says that backs up their argument.
When in fact the person is PERSONALLY prolife but politically may enforce Constitutional standards that defend the prochoice position by law.
The Founding Fathers seem to have said similar things, defending what they believe to be true of God and Christ, but also defending the Constitutional principles of not imposing these things through the state.
Where I found Jefferson to be intriguing is in his statement
that almost sounds like divine right to rule to me:, where he admits that government
leaders may be called by God to make certain decisions by God's will
that do not represent public opinion; so the will of the people
is not necessarily the basis of policy. I think this technically goes against
democratic principles of free will, informed consent, and Constitutional government
by the people and acknowledges that God's will or providence still governs.
That would technically violate separation of church and state.
I found it interesting that he acknowledges this factor.