Atheist Group Misquotes Jefferson on Billboard

Backyard Skeptics, another misguided atheist group, is unveiled a billboard in Orange County, California with a picture of Thomas Jefferson next to a quotation that they attribute to him.  The quotation reads, "I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature, it is founded on fables and mythology."

The skeptic group is already coming under attack by Christians and conservatives claiming that Jefferson never said or wrote what Backyard Skeptics attribute to him. When questioned about the authenticity of the quotation, the group’s director, Bruce Gleason, admitted that they had not verified the quotation before paying for the billboard

Gleason also admitted that the Jefferson Library Collection in Monticello is the leading authority on Jefferson and his quotations. And it turns out that the Jefferson Library Collection has no record of it.  They do list it on their website, but it is listed in a section of dubious quotations.

Raising the quotation’s origin brings one to a book Six Historic Americans by John E. Remsburg.  According to Remsburg’s book, the quotation came from a letter written by Jefferson to a Dr. Woods. Yet, the Jefferson Library Collection has no record of a Dr Woods or of Jefferson ever writing to such a person.

Faced with the information on the dubious origin of the quotation, Backyard Skeptics are accepting Remsburg’s version to be accurate and will not take any action to alter or remove the quotation from the board.

I would strongly urge Backyard Skeptics and others who claim Jefferson was a deist to do some further research into his writings. Keep in mind that a deist believes that God created everything and then has no involvement in His creation.

I contend that Jefferson was not a deist but did believe in God, although some of his views on Christianity were quite liberal as are many in the church today. Jefferson was not an atheist, so it's surprising that an atheist group would use him to support their cause. Here are some quotations from Jefferson along with the references. Note his use of the Bible, God's providence, and prayer ("supplications") for political guidance:

“I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land, and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with his providence, and our riper years with his wisdom and power; and to whose goodness I ask you to join with me in supplications, that he will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures, that whatsoever they do, shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.”  Thomas Jefferson’s Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1805.

“The practice of morality being necessary for the well-being of society, he has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus, and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in his discourses.”  Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Fishback, Sept. 27, 1809. Albert Ellery Bergh, ed. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., Washington D.C., 1907, V. 12,  p.315.

“The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of its benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind.”  Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Moses Robinson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, Washington D.C., 1907, V. 10, pp. 236-237.



April 21, 1803.

Dear Sir,—In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you, that one day or other, I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other.”  Thomas Jefferson, To Benjamin Rush, 21 April, 1803, Albert Ellery Bergh, ed. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1905, V. 9, pp. 379-381.

If Jefferson was a deist, he never would have included those lines in his second inaugural address. A deist would never ask for the favor of that Being, or believed that He led our forefathers, or who covered the nation’s infancy with His providence, or would go to Him with supplications. Furthermore, how do they explain the words Jefferson wrote to Dr. Benjamin Rush? Why would Jefferson have ever written such things to one of the most prominent people of the day? Additionally, if Jefferson was a deist, he would not believe that Jesus was a real person or the Son of God, yet he admits that Jesus’ moral precepts are the best that can be patterned after.

Bruce Gleason and the Backyard Skeptics are just like all of the rest of the historical revisionists who first try to destroy the integrity of the men and women in American history and then do their best to start re-writing history to make it fit their godless beliefs.  What they end up with is nothing more than a fictional novel like Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code that many gullible people will believe to be true history when in reality it’s just a story.

So even though it has been pointed out to them that there is no proof or documentation that Jefferson ever uttered or penned the words on the billboard, they intend to keep it there and knowingly purport a lie to get their message out there. It reminds me of Isaiah 44:25 which reads:

“Who frustrates the signs of liars and makes fools of diviners, who turns wise men back and makes their knowledge foolish.”



  • adrianvance

    The quote sounds more like Thomas Paine, who wrote "The Age of Reason," one of the great books in history, and still in print, where he documents about 100 inconsistencies in the Bible, things like the four different, and conflicting versions of the resurrection, the seminal event in Christianity.

    The Two Minute Conservative at has political analysis, science and humor. Now in the top 3% on Kindle.

    • Brama

      The Holy Scriptures have stood the test of time, and the so-called accusations of man. Many people claim inconsistenecies with the Bible, but yet never allow themselves to have those inconsistencies to be proven false, not matter the evidence or common sense. But why should I be surprised that men who reject the truth of scripture, are also the very ones who refuse to have meaningful dialogue in which they might be shown to be in error. People who make these claims live only about 100 years at the most. The scriptures have stood the test of centuries.

      • Bob Hutson

        I agree!

      • adrianvance

        Where it is possible to have only one set of facts it would seem your argument is hollow.

        • Brama

          Where fail to elaborate, it would seem your argument is hollow.

        • Try Harder

          There is no hell or fallen angels in the OT for starters. Your version you hold so dear was raped and mangled by the church who added Persian dualism. They stripped the parts that were too difficult to make it accessible to all. And this is the supposed word of god? Give me a break.

          The NT also conflicts with the OT on names of people and locations. If the NT is the word of god, how can it conflict with the OT?

          The most compelling is your version of satan. ah-satan, was an angel who did gods bidding and tested men. Which included, not so positive things. There is nothing about rebelling against god. It's also quite insulting to jews to claim an angel could rebel. Angels were created for a soul purpose of serving God. They are all holy and spiritual in matter. THEY POSSESS NO FREE WILL. To state otherwise, is to state God is not all powerful and what he created for a specific reason doesn't have to do what is was created for.

          Try reading something other than your version of the bible if you want to factually discuss a topic.

        • Brama

          Wow. The evidence here is so rich and abundant. (A little sarcasm there).
          For one, Try Harder, I own a Greek New Testament and a Hebrew/Aramaic Old, they call them Interlinear Bibles. Which means they contain the original text.
          "Your version you hold so dear was raped and mangled by the church..." Can you please pass the evidence?
          "The NT conflicts on names of people and locations." Can you please pass the evidence?
          "They possess no free will." You are correct. Neither does man. We have freedom of volition (choice). Both Angels and Man have the ability to choose to obey God or not. They weren't created without the ability to make choices. Finally, God created man (purpose) to be perfect as well, yet we chose to sin and rebel. So your last sentence isn't logically consistent.

        • Try Harder

          Yet again, a Christian uses NT crap to back something up.

          There is nothing in the OT that states angels have FREEDOM OF VOLITION. Angels do not have the ability to choose to do something from their own desire. They're all holy and spiritual in matter. They're created FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE. The fact you even try to state angels and mortals born with free will, is insulting to say the least.

          There isn't a single section, anywhere in the Torah that states ah-satan disobeyed god, rebelled and rules over hell. NO WHERE. It's a FACT. They only place you find it, is in your own version of the bible, my christian friend.

          In Judaism only human kind have free will, no other creature has the ability to differntiate between good and evil nor what path they believe to take.

          Brama, try researching this topic a little more. It's a contradiction to state Angels suddenly in the NEW VERSION of the will of god, suddenly changes ah-satan into a rebellious, evil figure. Sounds familiar, oh, Persian dualism.

        • Brama

          Try Harder, not only are you missing at the very minimum the Gen. 3 account, but you also cut off your own nose despite your face. Are you saying there's no such thing as Evil? No where in the Torah does it say that Angels DON'T have freedom of volition. The fact is, ALL created beings are subject to corruption because only God is perfect.
          Furthermore, here is your own quote from above.
          "To state otherwise, is to state God is not all powerful and what he created for a specific reason doesn't have to do what is was created for." You use this argument for angels, but not man? That's why the logic of your argument doesn't make sense.

        • Brama

          Ah... satan. Well, for one, I don't know how any Jew would so easily dismiss the 3rd chapter of Genesis, unless they consider the account of Adam and Eve to be figurative. If that's the case, I would ask when that person actually starts believing the history of the Genesis account to be literal. Genesis 4? How about 6? After the flood? Should it start at Abraham? If one thinks about it, it really is questioning God on the history He purports to be true. As for Satan, you have Gen. 3, Job 1 (which is the oldest book), Isaiah 14, & Ezekiel 28.

        • Brama

          OT references to Hell:
          Isaiah 33:14, Psalm 9:17, Ezekiel 32:27, Proverbs 23:14, Isaiah 30:33, Proverbs 5:5.

      • kibitzer3

        "The scriptures" have not stood the test of centuries, Brama. When I started studying this matter seriously over 50 years ago - "this matter" of Christianity in particular and religions in general - I came across considerable research pointing to weaknesses in all the 'stories'. But the average person doesn't read research books. The carrying culture carries the day, all too often. A shame. That attitude needs to change. That is what The Enlightenment was supposed to be all about: science and reason would prevail. As it should. And I don't refer to dogmatic science. That is as bad as the Catholic Church trying to hold back the impulse to Truth (about the workings of the solar system). Which should be behind all of our human actions. And as it works its way through the stonework of many accepted beliefs, it will uncover an ultimate Truth: well expressed by a son of the Catholic Church, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, in his observation that "we are spiritual beings having a human experience". That truth, that awareness, we can ALL rally around. Or should. The times cry out for that common understanding, of what life is all about. All else is secondary, or man-made.

        • Brama

          So what you're saying is, kibitzer, is that we should throw out all 20,000 plus pieces of New Testament alone manuscripts, and follow the teach on one Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, whose statement has no deeper meaning than one hand clapping, points to no truth or logical reference, and in and of itself is man-made as well? I also find it odd that you think science and reason are at odds with Christianity.... as if you forgot that most of all the early scientists were theists. I'd encourage you to consider such videos as The Privileged Planet, Unlocking the Mystery of Life, and Case for a Creator. Or how about Ben Stein's "Expelled". Or how about Dating Fossils and Rocks by Little. Or maybe try something with more philosophical or logical argumentation such as Ravi Zacharias, or William Lane Craig, or Alvin Plantinga.

        • kibitzer

          I mean no disrespect, Brama. As a seeker of truth, I keep an open mind, and I see that you have read a fair amount in this matter, and I fully support those who don't take a set of beliefs purely on face value. In that spirit, I encourage you to inspect your premises further regarding the NT - and the OT also, for that matter; but for right now, we're talking about the truth, or not, of the NT, as an historical record of actual events. And a true seeker of truth will soon find that there is considerable evidence that the NT is a mishmash of material that bears little resemblance to historical truth. Or Truth itself.

          For example. In our day and age, we have had the benefit of considerable evidence for the truth of reincarnation, ie, our souls experience lifetimes until we 'get it right' - clear our karma, so that we can move on in the higher realms. I fully accept the Case for a Creator, based on hard evidence; and that evidence would lead one to conclude, logically, that behind the whole shebang of life is a Plan, and Purpose; and that all could logically lead one to conclude that the best descriptive quality to give to what is behind all that would be, in a word, Love. All deductible, based on evidence.

          Religions are about beliefs. We need to move beyond beliefs, into the realm of facts. And the truth shall set us free.

          Incidentally, as to your comment about Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: his wise observations led him to make this comment as well: "Someday, after mastering the winds, the waves, the tides, and gravity, we shall harness for God the energies of love, and then, for a second time in the history of the world, humanity will have discovered fire." It was in 1934 that he was inspired to write this. He wrote it for our day and age. We are about to ignite the world with the fire of Love; those energies to be harnessed to show ourselves what magic we can perform n the name of Truth - the Truth that we can all believe in, regardless of our various religions and political ideologies. It's a grand time to be alive, and bear witness to this conflagration in the human heart; leaving the old gods behind.

        • Brama

          I also like how you call the NT a mishmash of material, yet provide no historical evidence to prove that assumption, while at the same time assuming that your next point makes that point.

          "-the Truth that we can all believe in, regardless of our various religions and political ideologies." I love what Ravi Zacharias says to these kind of comments. "Even if God had provided 1000 ways to come to Him, man would want 1001... because it's not the limitations of God being able to meet the needs of man, but man's limitations at accepting the way that God has provided." - Slight paraphrase... I have the audio file, but don't have time to get the perfect quote. -Taken from "The Top 5 questions University Students have about Christianity- 1997 at the University of Iowa (or Ohio - can't remember which).

        • Mark_1111

          Actually, I have read some research books on this subject. I have studied this issue for years myself. Kibitzer, you are wrong on all counts, and if anyone takes enough time to look at History long enough, they could find the truth about the Bible. The Enlightenment happened right after the Reformation, because that's the pattern of history as demonstrated here --- (1) God creates a garden and gives a command, the devil counters what God said... (2) God writes the OT, then Satan counters with Greek Philosophy... (3) God sends Jesus Christ, then Satan tempts Him in the wilderness... (4) God writes the NT, then Satan counters with the gnositcs and Greek scholars in Africa... (5) God preserves his words through 1,600 years of Roman / Catholic persecution, then Satan counters with "the Enlightenment".... (6) God sends the greatest revivals known to mankind via the British Empire, then Satan counters with Westcott and Hort in 1881-1886... // in other words, the pattern of history is this: God says something and Satan tries to counter what God said. --- and, anyone who has really studied history already knows this, kibitzer (definition of kibitz -- to interfere or give unwanted advice. a deceiver)

        • kibitzer

          With all due respect for your reading of the historical process, Mark, I read that record a different way. I read it as having brought us (actually, where we have brought ourselves; and I DO mean 'us') to the point in time where and when we can leave the old forms - of all kinds - behind, and create a society wherein we share our goods and services with one other, and give of our best in the process, out of gratitude to our Creator for life with meaning (see my reply to Brama above). Thus we are at a peak point of our process, of human life on Earth; learning to live in and by Love. And anyone who has really studied history could well know this.

          Incidentally, the name 'kibitzer' really doesn't have to do with being a deceiver. It has to do with lobbing in sometimes unwanted advice - what is sometimes taken as 'unwanted'. Aka known as a bit of a troublemaker, at times. Somebody who stirs up the pot. Anyway, that is my tongue-in-cheek take on it, and what I mean by its use.

        • Brama

          Kibitzer, you fail to understand that God is not primarily love. God is primarily Holy. And it's His holiness that man cannot escape His judgment. God's holiness demands perfection, but God's Love provided the way by which man could be redeemed. That is the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ. You have unwittingly placed God's love ahead of his holiness. As if God will overlook the tresspasses of a sinner, the way a judge would overlook the crimes of a criminal. God is not arbitrary. Nor is he flaky. God is consistent in all that He does. "For God so loved the world..." is probably one of the most well-known NT passages. But it was the need to satisfy God's holiness that God sent His Son. God could have been justified in being Holy, and not providing Jesus. That's why it is called Grace - Unmerited Favor. God shewed favor to mankind, though it was unmerited.

        • kibitzer3

          First of all, re my 'a mishmash of material' comment:

          What the world knows as ‘Christianity’ has been an elaborate con job, a hoax apparently mostly on the part of Saul of Tarsus. (Who may also have been the Jewish historian Josephus, according to the research of one Ralph Ellis, correlating the curious similarities between their two life stories. But that’s another story.) It was based on a feature of the day, regarding itinerant preachers (called presbyters), who told elaborate and fanciful tales of nonsense to the gullible, for a livelihood. Examples in the record. There WAS an historical figure at the time, that the later Christian church was based on; but he apparently had very little resemblance to the image worshipped by later 'believers'.

          Read the likes of Ralph Ellis and Tony Bushby, in our day. (As to the latter: his ‘The Bible Fraud’, ‘The Secret in the Bible’, and ‘The Crucifixion of Truth’; the first of which contains the quote, from Pope Leo X: “How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us”.) In the day of my early research into the murky origins of this religion, it was the work in particular of some German scholars, whose research into the literature led them to the same conclusion as these more modern-day researchers: that ‘Christianity’ was based on various fables of the time, about fertility gods (like Tammuz), and such; being buried in a tomb (of the earth) for three days, and then resurrecting; etc etc.

          As a kibitzer, I’m an irritant to the people concentrating on playing the game (of illusory reality) right in front of their eyes. ‘My mind’s made up - don’t confuse me with the facts.’ But we need to be confused - confounded - with the facts. Life needs to move on, to a proper conclusion, in celebration of the Most High - of our Source, Who gave us the wherewithal in which to move and live and have our separate being - ie, the realm of free will - in order ultimately to choose to return to the house of our Father.

          At which point we become One again with that loving Source. Loving, and as you say: Holy.

        • Brama

          Actually, Kitbitzer, The Devine Evidence Christian website actually posted an article in 2007 regading 'The Bible Fraud' in which they detail major fallacies in Bushby's book, which rely heavily on suppositions that under scrutiny and cross-examination, are really just clever similarities that give the impression of true connection. Might want to check it out since it's available online.
          But hey, when we're trying to eliminate moral accountability outside of ourselves, why would I expect anyone to cross-reference any of Bushby's work against the critics?
          I will admit that I haven't actually read 'The Secret in the Bible and The Crucifixion of Truth... but once you've realized a lack of due diligence and outright error in a man's writings, you tend not to spend too much time going back to that same source.
          I also think its funny that he mentions German scholars - without (seemingly) mentioning any names - You might want to try Jacob Kamer who was an Austrian Specialist and Scholar on the Resurrection - As well as Dr. William Lane Craig's 3 books, including Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment.

        • kibitzer3

          First of all, Brama, I want to appreciate your referencing all the material you have in this thread. You're reminding me of my intense desire to ferret out the truth of all this lo these many years ago, now (to the point of my dropping out of going into med school, in order to trace down the truth as best I could, about 'the meaning of life'). It was, frankly, a bugger. There wasn't all of this sort of thing available back then. But what there was, cast a pall over the subject of the origins of Christianity. Too many questions; too many assumptions; too many blatantly human interpolations. The given story, simply, didn't stand up to scholarly scrutiny. And even though I appreciated following up on your reference to the devine [sic] evidence dot com link - and am quite happy to see this sort of thing, this give and take of debate; as any true seeker of truth would be - I also note that the Google search for it threw up quite a few of arguments on the other side of the matter as well, ie, serious questions about the veracity of the 'accepted' story. (And as for the reference in that link to 'heretical texts' and 'true texts', and their having been decided by a 'committee' - please. Give me a break. 'Arianism' declared a heresy by a vote? Of the most politically powerful of the day?? Sorry; I don't buy it.)

          As for your chiding me about not responding to the issue of Moral Accountability - which I presume relates to your comment, "As if God will overlook tresspasses [sic] of a sinner...": who's trying to "eliminate moral accountability outside of ourselves"?? I have referred herein to my research which led me to the extensive material vouchsafing the truth of reincarnation, and its attendant law of karma: ie, that we are all responsible for our actions, and will have to redress the grievances we have inflicted on others, before we can progress on our spiritual paths - the latter the logical point of the exercise. As I have written elsewhere: 'Life is a school. And the purpose is to graduate.' *

          Which brings up a 'new, improved' wrinkle on the Golden Rule for our day and age. With the truth of reincarnation now a part of our scientific scrutiny, and slowly becoming a part of our cultural makeup - the recognition that we are all just playing parts, in a drama that we are the authors of, and need now to fully 'cognize' for what it is - we need to progress to the concept that 'As you do unto others, so do you do unto yourself'. For We Are One Another. And more: We Are One.

          Our time demands that we re-cognize this: that we are all One. And All is One.

          May we come to that recognition. And soon. Before we take a wrong turn. And have to climb out of the pit of Unknowing all over again.

          A fate that is too painful to contemplate, for long.

          * So: there is Plan in and Purpose to life; without any need for a Sacrifice. Except for all those Wayshowers throughout the ages, who have tried to help light the way for a struggling humanity to see beyond its near horizon, of sheer survival.

        • Brama

          And while yo're at it, you might want to put the little Zeitgeist movie under a little more scrutiny too. Not only that, you still haven't addressed the issue of Moral Accountability either.

        • Brama

          My last reply got zapped due to a web link. But in a nut shell, read the first book you mentioned. Didn't read the last two due to the first one lacking academic and historical integrity. If you'd like to know what I mean, in 1997, the site thedevineevidence(dot)com wrote an article critiquing The Bible Fraud, and it's not Christians who have to worry. It's free to view. just reference the web site I just gave and add: /the_bible_fraud_review(dot)html. They address the very quote from Leo X too.

          OR, you could try picking up a copy of William Lane Craig, OR works by Jacob Kremer, the Austrian Biblical Scholar who wrote numerous books, and was considered one of THE most authorities on the Resurrection. Craig's book is called, Jesus's Resurrection: Fact or Figment.

        • Brama

          OR, how about a quote by Will Durant, a secular Historian.
          Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh. The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.... The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies, for example Hammurabi, David, Socrates would fade into legend.

        • Brama

          OR maybe Graham Stanton, who occupies the chair in New Testament Studies at Cambridge University and led the attack on Carston Theide's re-dating of the Jesus Papyrus. He considers the Jesus Myth crowd even more extreme as he writes in The Gospels and Jesus............
          “Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which as to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.”

      • adrianvance

        Sorry, the literature does not support that idea. Only you faith does and so you may wonder how many angels can dance on the head of a pin while I prefer to live in the real world.

        • Brama

          I wasn't finished... just detained.
          I'm not concerned about offending Jews. Paul said that the gospel is an offense to the Jews, simply because it means being Jewish doesn't automatically afford a right standing before God.... righteousness does. And all men everywhere have transgressed God's moral law. All men have lied, which makes us liars, in the same way that if I ra ped someone, I would be a ra pist, even if I had done the time in prison... I still would be someone who has committed the offense. And with the offense, comes the penalty: death. But because God is eternal and infinite, the offense is also eternal and infinite. So therefore, Man must somehow reconcile his offense before God. All the good things man does does not account for the fact that He has transgressed God's moral law. He is the perfect judge who will by no means clear the guilty. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." Ezekiel 18:20

        • Dave

          How do you know what's real? The human mind is a wonderful construct, but every sensation could conceivably be a hallucination. Try telling someone with Cotard's Delusion that they're not a ghost, reliving their former life. Try telling someone with any form of schizoid disorder - schizophrenia, schizophreniform, schizoaffective, schizotypal, - that they're delusional. Try proving it to them. Then, take a look at your own beliefs about "the real world" in which you live, and try to convince yourself that there's no possible way that you're delusional... that you're in denial of the facts, staring you in the face...

          Socrates FTW...

        • Brama

          Hey Dave, if that's your response, then why should I take you seriously? You could be having a delusion yourself. Ah, but that would be self-defeating... a lack of common sense, which, I doubt you would argue that you lack.
          If you question reality, then the conversation becomes self-defeating, more for you than for me. But I doubt you really even believe your own statement. Why do I say that? Because even you stay in your own lane while driving, avoid chopping your finger when cutting an onion, or probably take medicine when you have a headache. Your idea SOUNDS good, but it only works for you when its applied to everyone else.

    • JudyG46

      I suspect the four differing views of the Resurrection might be quite similar to any eye-witness accounts one would find today. Different people seeing it from various vantage points.

      In light of that, there are no "contradictions" or "conflicting versions in the Holy Scriptures, just varying observation points of the same event.

      • adrianvance

        The "Rasho Man Effect" if you saw the movie. As one who made a comprehensive study of vision for my book, "UFO's: The Eye and the Camera" you make a valid point. Much of what we think we see is recalled just as computers store internet pages we have seen to switch to them rather than reload as it is quicker. This feature of human perception has caused a lot of problems and resulted in some unfortunate trial outcomes.

        The Two Minute Conservative at has political analysis, science and humor. Now in the top 3% on Kindle.

    • Tea Party Volunteer

      Take the SPAM to another site...

    • Heyoka

      I concur...

    • Dani

      There are no inconsistencies in the Bible and no conflicting versions.

    • cartoon-sub

      I have read the "Age of Reason" and I have read the Holy Bible cover-to-cover. I can assure you that Thomas Paine was wrong on every count: anyone who has ever read the Bible cover-to-cover knows that Paine was wrong. Furthermore, in "The Age of Reason", Thomas Paine admitted that he didn't even own a Bible. How can we believe he READ a book that he didn't even OWN? -- Thomas Pain: what a joke! LOL

      • adrianvance

        As one of those "everyones," which dashes that concept, let me tell you that I have studied "The Age of Reason" and found it to be valid. If it were not it would have been kept in print for over 200 years and yes I know the Bible has been in print for nearly 2,000 years, but what you see in the King James version is not what was written by any means.

        • Dave

          Ad-Logicum: a valid point is not necessarily a true one.

          As to your statement about the King James Version... I must say I'm astonished by your lack of scholastic diligence and honesty...

    • JudyG46

      My final point is, getting back to the original topic about misquoting Jefferson on the billboard, NO ONE should misquote anything that they intend to 'advertise'. Period. All the surrounding discussion about the Bible, etc. (which I also responded to) is irrelevant. The atheist group that created this ad and billboard ought to get their FACTS straight and correct the message on the billboard. Period.

      • adrianvance

        Has anyone bothered to ask them for a citation? They may have one! You are arguing a negative and that is only for fools.

        • JudyG46

          Perhaps the "fools" are those who don't question the authenticity of the billboard quote.

        • adrianvance

          You seem particularly well qualified to talk about fools.

        • JudyG46

          It appears that your goal is to insult people who have their own opinion. Name calling or innuendo are unnecessary in healthy intercourse.

        • adrianvance

          Mademoiselle, I will disprove your contention by not taking advantage of the opening you have presented.

      • Kyindependent

        JudyG46, Why would we expect this atheist group, or any atheist group, to be concerned with telling the truth? They are doing the will of the "Great Deceiver" Satan. While I find their message repulsive I still must pray for them to receive Salvation before it's to late. Atheism is a Sin! We, as christians are told to hate the sin, not the sinner. I agree, if they want to say something they should tell the truth, but, what else can we expect from a group of LIARS.

        • JudyG46

          Thanks for your input. I absolutely agree with you. "One cannot make a cow bark" Author - a former Pastor of mine. I've also noticed that since I've been on this site my 'reputation meter' has plummeted! It appears that those who have left leaning, liberal, secular humanist views and comments are more highly valued.

    • Dave

      Those alleged inconsistencies have already been reconciled, time and time again, ever since the time of the Diatessaron. Rather than being evident as inconsistencies, they are instead evident as complimentary passages; and, with but a little further reading in the Bible, the reconciliation of these passages, each to the others, is further evidenced. More to the point, however, is the fact that there is still no more than mildly suggestive coincidental and circumstantial evidence to support the claims against the Bible; whereas the entire scope of evidence, in every sense, supports the Bible on every topic covered either by the Bible itself, or the extrabiblical evidence. Claims that the Bible is, in any sense, fictional, are subject to Carl Sagan's quote: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"... and, not even ordinary evidence supports such extremely extraordinary claims.

      • adrianvance

        "Alleged inconsistencies?" Thomas Paine wrote the first version of "The Age of Reason" while in the Bastile in Paris having been wrongly arrested and convicted by the Revolution for having been a Royalist when he in fact had gone to France to fight for the revolutionaries. It was only 32 pages. When he got out and returned to America he worked on the book, verified what he had done from recollection, had scholars read it and make changes where necessary. It was probably the first "peer reviewed" work in America and has stood the test of time being in print to this day. You give no solid refutations, evidence other than one misspelled name. No cigar.

        Tell me why I was badly burned to within a millimeter of death at age two and why my four month old sister died in the light of your "All knowing, all seeing God." Tell me why we have wars, infant disease, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and one ply toilet paper if your God concept is valid. I say it is not and has only served to erect such monstrosities as the Vatican that put people to death for witchcraft and heresy, imprisoned Galileo for saying there were spots on the sun and has protected thousands of pedofiles and has been claimed by many to have turned its back on the Jews of Germany saying they were getting justice for having killed Christ.

  • The Godfather

    Of course, the supposed "conflicting views" of the resurrection accounts are actually four different vantage points, like we would see in any group of testimonies.

    Otto Scott, a journalist, editor, historian, and author of ten books, who coined the phrase “the silent majority,” was attracted to the gospel accounts of Jesus’ life because they didn’t agree on every point. Scott recounts how he became a Christian after reading the gospels.

    "Well, my wife was Christian and took our daughter to church all the time. I would attend out of courtesy. One night I was reading late and my little girl came out of the bedroom and wanted to know about this business of turning the other cheek. I had no idea where that idea came from but I thought it might be the Bible. I had a Bible in the house, of course, and I picked it up and read the Gospels—all four in one swoop.

    "It was the contradictions in the testimony of these four different men that convinced me. As a reporter I had interviewed a lot of men, and I was on the crime beat at one point. I knew that if you get four men who tell you the same story they probably are colluding because no four men see the same thing the same way. One sees one significant element; one sees another. Although there was a close resemblance in the reporting of certain incidents in the Gospels, they were not identical. I was instantly convinced. I don’t think a person could have convinced me, but those varying contemporary histories did." (Quoted in James P. Lucier, “Otto Scott Steers by the Compass,” Insight (1999).

    In the same interview, Scott comments: “On the historical side, each time you look into the background of a certain line of activity, it looks different. The first historical background I did was for the Ashland Oil book. It was an attempt to put the history of the company against the contemporary events of the period through which the company had grown. But my attempt was sort of a tour of the surface — what you get from looking at ordinary accounts of the times beginning in 1918. But the next time I looked at the period, when I was writing the history of Raytheon, the background looked different. I began to go into history in a more serious way.”

    • armyvet

      What you say is completely true, and on top of that, we must remember the Gospel written many years later. The 1st Gospel written was by Mark, about the year 70, not long after the martyrdom of Peter, Paul and James. This would have been about 37 years after Jesus' death. John's was last, probably in the 90's.
      If you have a problem remembering the exact sequence of things that happened last year, try 30, 40 or 50 years ago! The events were real, substantiated by the fact that all four remembered them, and the message to all Christians is the same.

  • J Wilson

    It should be mentioned that Jefferson -- while he was a Founding Father -- was NOT a Framer. He was not present at the Constitutional convention and not a party to the debates that took place. He had no direct input into what went in to our charter. Of course, that will not stop the atheists from claiming he slipped unnoticed from his ambassadore duties in Europe and was indeed present at the convention.

    Even if it could be proved Jefferson was an atheist (highly unlikely), it is immaterial to the founding of the United States as a nation based squarely on the rule of fundamental laws revealed in the Judeo-Christian scriptures.

    • philwynk

      Not a Framer? I think perhaps you should revise your criteria. While Jefferson was not present at the Constitutional Convention, he remained in constant mail contact with James Madison, discussing with him the details of the new Constitution as they were hammered out. Jefferson's thoughts were very much present in the formation of the Constitution.

    • TedRWeiland

      J Wilson: "the founding of the United States as a nation based squarely on the rule of fundamental laws revealed in the Judeo-Christian scriptures."

      There is only one criteria by which this oft-parroted mantra can be proven true - that is, by Yahweh's morality as found in His commandments, statutes and judgments. And by this standard, the statement is proven to be absolutely false. See "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at

      By the way, I'm neither an athiest nor an agnostic, I'm a Christian Pastor who's simply tired of being lied to about the secular, humanistic, polytheistic promoting Constitution, which created a government of, by, and for the people rather than a government of, by, and for Yahweh, as had previously been found in most of the 17th-century Colonial governments.

      • StaceyD

        If you're actually a pastor, then you should know this scripture real well "Give to Caesar which is Caesar's and unto God which is God's." i.e., Jesus had no political leanings. For sure, he didn't want his followers to be persecuted, but at the same time he wasn't here to set up a formation of a government--just bridging the gap between God and man. God also gave us free will/free choice. We can CHOOSE to worship Him. If our government is forcing us to worship Him and follow his laws, then we're not being given a choice. It's only "popular" or "good business" to say you're a Christian even when you don't mean it.

        By the way, I'm neither an atheist nor an agnostic. I'm just you're average young college student who has a lot of Christian Pastors in her family, grew up in church and keeps God's word close to her heart. I don't profess to know it all, just more than most.

        • TedRWeiland

          Stacey, if you're actually a college student with lots of Christian pastors in your family, perhaps you should know that your interpretation of Matthew 22:21 and Mark 12:17 may very well be incorrect. "In Mark 12:17, we find Jesus' oft-misused statement: 'Render to Caesar the that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.' Many people have interpreted this statement to mean that Yahweh and Caesar have separate jurisdictions, powers, and possessions. Is this true or is there another explanation for Jesus' statement?

          "The term 'Caesar' is used today to represent government in general. However, at the time Jesus made this statement, Julius Caesar was a real life and blood Roman dictator. Just what was it then that Jesus was saying should be rendered to Caesar? Did the bodies, souls, and spirits of man belong to Caesar? Did reverence and obedience belong to Caesar? Did the people’s land and other possessions belong to Caesar? What about taxes? Romans 13:7 tells us to 'Render therefore to all their dues: tribute [tax, NASB] to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.' In Verse 6, Paul indicated that all of these things are due to God’s ministers or servants. Did Caesar qualify as one of the ministers of God described by Paul? No he did not, not according to Paul’s description of such ministers in Verses 3 and 4.

          "...the government described by Paul in Romans 13:1-7 is clearly a Christian government, based upon the moral laws of Yahweh. Therefore, the taxes Paul described as due to God’s ministers are biblical taxes. Are we then to believe that Jesus was suggesting that biblical taxes (the tithes) be paid to Caesar? The answer is 'yes, He was,' provided Caesar was one of His ministers, one of His representatives [as described in Romans 13:3-4].

          "This brings us back to Jesus' answer to the Pharisees and Herodians, 'Render to Caesar the that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.' This statement begs answers to the following two questions: What belongs to Yahweh and what belongs to Caesar? The answer to the first question answers the second question. Yahweh reigns over and owns everything:

          'The earth is YHWH’s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.' (Psalm 24:1)

          "What does this leave for Caesar? Jesus' answer was merely another instance of Jesus trapping the Pharisees with their own words – in this instance, forcing them to choose their god, Yahweh or Caesar?"

          Excerpted from "Amendment 10: Counterfeited Powers" at

        • Patrick Henry

          Our pastor when talking about this said that the coin was made to bear Caesar's image, and therefore belonged to him. We, on the other hand, are made in God's image, and therefore we belong to God.

        • TedRWeiland

          Excellent insight! Thanks for sharing it with me.

  • Dave

    “Put not your trust Princes, nor in the son of man, for there is no help in him.”
    Psalm 146:3

    Compare and contrast the biblical reference above with Jefferson's extrapolation below.

    “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Thomas Jefferson

    I invite you to realize that a modern day Thomas Jefferson lives today; His name is Ron Paul. Ron Paul's ideas are Mainstream Americana. He is a student of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, other Founders, and The Holy Bible.

    • Sandi Trusso

      When in the world did Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, any other founder, or the Bible, ever define "liberty" as being homosexual marriage, homosexual adoption of children, legal recreational marijuana, pornography or any of the other moral issues which Ron Paul feels should have legal penalties removed as he defines them to mean that "there should be no penalties unless they hurt someone else". Well, what kind of a person waits until people are hurt (as my brother was killed by a hit & run driver on marijuana) before they do something? The name of the game is "prevention" not "after the fact". Furthermore, can anyone in his/her right mind imagine any of the above just ignoring these things, waiting till people are hurt?

    • debrarae

      Are you kidding me? The same Ron Paul who demanded that all reps should be able to show IN the constitution where the the authority to authorize the bill existed; and then REFUSED to do that HIMSELF when he introduced the amendment to end all aide to Israel (one of our greatest allies)?

      • Vicki

        He did not need to. It is prima facie obvious that ending all aid to a foreign power is simply stopping something that is un-constitutional. There is NO Constitutional authority given to Congress to take our hard earned money and give it to a foreign power.

    • sanderson

      Amen, brother. Ron Paul

  • Brian Yoder

    It is worth noting that in the "Jefferson Bible" he took the time to create a revised version of the Bible that removed all references to supernatural events (miraculous healings, etc.) which leads me to think that he disbelieved in miracles, and in a thoughtful enough way as to make him take on this onerous task (as opposed to just popping off some momentary opinion at a party or in a letter).

    That said, the quote doesn't sound to me like anything Jefferson would have said, even if he might have thought it. He was after all an able politician and it would not have made any sense for him to so alienate such a large part of the population like that. The weight of the evidence seems to me to be in the direction of the quote being fake.


  • Spiderman

    The Four Gospels do not contradict one another. They actually augment one another to give the whole picture from the viewpoints of four followers of Jesus. All four were not always at the same event or place, but they present the Lord as Man, God, Servant-King, and Savior, the four points of His revelation to humanity.

    • everthepartypooper

      I am a Christian although I would probably be burned at the stake as a heritic. Spiderman, no disrespect, but historically, I don't think any of them were there.
      The Council of Nicene (300 some odd years later) decided that the four gospels that we read complemented each other and told the story Constintine wanted told, they way he wanted it told. Me? I like the gospel of thomas.
      The true genius of Christianity is that there is salvation.

      • Brama

        John MacArthur Jr..... from his message, "The Fitting End to Mark's Gospel":
        We also have eight thousand ancient copies of the New Testament in Latin called the Vulgate. And the Vulgate dates from 382 to 405. We also have 350-plus copies of the Bible in Syriac that goes back to the 200’s. If I’m belaboring this a little bit, I’m going to tell you why. We have all these ancient manuscripts that when compared all say the same thing.

        • Brama

          The early church fathers, for example, before 325 because there was the Council of Nicea in 325, they’re called the ante nicene fathers because they were before Nicea, the early fathers in the 200’s and 300’s, if you just read…there were these guys writing all kinds of theology, and all kinds of biblical study material, if you take the church fathers prior to 325, there are among those fathers about 32 thousand quotes from the New Testament. There are so many quotes from the New Testament among those fathers in the writings of the fathers, which we have, which are held in libraries, that we can reconstruct the complete New Testament from nothing but the writings of the fathers. That’s another source to find what the New Testament said in ancient times.

      • Kimber

        if I recall correctly,
        The discussions of what 1st century new testament accounts would be included began in 150 A.D. in response to the gnostic books that were ciculating at the time.
        (Constantine's edition was issued in 325 A.D.)
        That catholic church's "vetting" process took about 200 years and 105 books were discarded.
        The final version included the two councils of Laodecea (364A.D.) and Carthage (394A.D.)

        The four Gospels were included in the 1st century accounts and do indeed qualify as "eyewitness" accouts.

  • Jim Baxter

    In a letter to Charles Thomson, written from Monticello, under date
    of January 9, 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote the following; "I, too,
    have made a wee little book from the same materials, which I call the
    Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by
    cutting the texts ot of the book, and arranging them on the pages of
    a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful
    or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in
    proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the
    doctrines of Jesus."

    Published regarding his book, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. by
    Thomas Jefferson 1904, Washington D.C.

  • Brian Yoder

    All that said, whether he was a deist, a Christian of sorts, or an out and out atheist, what does it really matter? Do you think it would change anybody's mind today we were to discover any of these to be clearly true? Of course there's the matter of dedication to truth per se which I find compelling enough, but in practical terms I don't think the issue is going to change any minds one way or another.


  • Brama

    Yeah... had a Christian misquoted an Atheist, we would have been branded as outright liars. But for atheists, they just brush it aside as a "mistake".

    • Patriot1776

      Don't forget the legal attack that would happen, demanding that we take down the sign and remove all indications of christianity. The ACLU would be all over it.

      • Brama

        I'm interested to see if there is a 'retraction'. But hey, why stop a good lie when it supports your cause...regardless of the truth.

      • donjusko

        Let the ACLU be "all over it". It would show just how they lie and what worthless scum they are.

  • jst

    While we are on the topic, Thomas Jefferson believed in progressive taxation where the poorest would pay nothing at all.

    • Patriot1776

      Well, do you suppose that he would be happy that 1/2 of the population pays nothing at all?

    • captelaine

      Earth to JST... there WAS NO income tax until 1913... long after T Jefferson's penning of the Constitution.. but thanks for show your ignorance.

      • Kimber

        To be fair, JST did not claim that there was an income tax. He merely claimed that Thomas Jefferson held that personal view.

      • jst

        Earth to captelaine... there WERE STILL other taxes before 1913... including when T Jefferson was still penning documents... but thanks for showing yours (and that of those who liked your inane comment)

    • debrarae

      Can you post links to your 'assumption' please?

      • jst

        Assumption is an odd choice of words for a historical reference, interpretation maybe... here is at least one reference where he mentions the sensibility and morality of progressive taxation, it all sounds pretty liberal actually.

        • Mitchina

          Well, back then even the furthest leftists still believed in God - we have come a long way, baby... and in the wrong direction indeed.

  • dan

    Jefferson, although not an atheist, had printed The Jefferson Bible. My copy is long gone. Jefferson
    believed in the ethics (lifestyle) of Christianity but denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. The problem that
    resulted in Jefferson's thinking, due to removal on miraculous (so new birth) lacked ability to produce this
    life of Jesus Christ. Only the Gospel can do that, which Jefferson did not believe. Eternally to bad.

    Read more in the religious section of in the religious section which distinguished between
    Christianity and Religion as well as gives evidences of God's existence as well as the Person and work
    of Jesus Christ.

    • Heyoka

      I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus as is taught by the Roman Doctrine. I belive in the divinity of all men and women if we chose it. Like Jesus said you do these things, heal the sick and raise the dead. It was the roman Church that condemned the people over some original sin-sex-that did not exist. Truly if we were made by God did he not make us to perfection in the begining??? "Male and Female he created them..." King James Version. The original sin was not following the truth in our hearts being enlightened beings and chose to know the difference of good and evil by choosing to experience the consequences of our actions. All the Harlot Daughters of the Roman Church-find the practice of making the founder of the sect divine, even Ceasar was thought to be divine and so the Roman Practice was embedded into Christianity.

      • Heyoka

        Jesus said to Mary after she found the tomb empty was to go and the my brothers that I ascend to my Father and their Father my God and their God. This direct reference to duality was no mistake and you will find that when speaking to his followers always spoke to them directly but when he spoke to others, especially those who meant to entrap him in his own words, would use parables. This is the reason that there are some apparent inconsistancies. I and my Father are one, is very deep spiritual concept usually referenced to experiencing the divine on a personal level. Some spiritual experience of profound meaning is the result of the event and it is an understood concept in higher level of spiritual teachings.

        • Heyoka

          You must understand that Jefferson in referencing Israel was a devout student of the Bible and the historical significance of Israelite experience and the development of the culture in a deeply religious perspective. Almost all of the Founders believed this. The Masonic Order was the repository of the "Mysteries" things that would have gotten you burned at the stake in older times. The entire description of the Tabernacle and the Temple and its impliments expressly reveal a deeper working in spiritual expression than most people of today are ready to even hear mush less accept.

        • Heyoka

          Remember this, the one who is referred to as satan was the one who force all mankind to worship God. The entity was cast out of the Presance of the Creator-God- for this reason. God wanted mankind to come being led by their hearts not by force and not solely on the intellectual level either. So whosoever would force their beliefs upon us and calim it is of God or of a higher rationale beware because that is the spirit of Satan and the spirit of Anti-Christ is that which says we can never heach the level of Jesus. Jesus said we could, and 1 John 4 states the description of all the pulpit pounding hell fire and brimstone priests, ministers and pastors who tell us we cannot. Of these the Roman Church alone was equal to the practice that began in ancient Babylon hence the reference.

      • StaceyD

        It is a common misconception by those who have not truly read the story of the fall that the original sin was sex. It wasn't. It was disobeying God. Gen 3 describes the fall. The woman (not yet named as Eve) says, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." But Adam and Eve both proceeded to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (as we term it). This shows that the original sin was disobedience to God and his word, NOT sex. Sex was created by God as a beautiful thing to be reserved for marriage between a man and his wife to carry on the man's name. It is not a sinful act inside of marriage.

  • vinny

    why do you worry about buffoons like this ass ? I refer to that 'ADRIAN" type. He looks like he has one foot in the grave and the other's on it's way and he's still too thick to reason well. Bet he believes in "universal consciousness," chanting ooohhmm, mommy earth, "space brothers", ancestor worship, or Gaia maybe even worship of dead dogs. Just let the dumb imbecile wallow in his own dung. It's very becoming on him, fits that type to a T. send "loving thoughts" to him... HA ! yeah right ! Remember G-D even told one of His people to Not pray for certain cretins.

  • TheEkstaza

    I know I certainly do not know the mind of Jefferson, but I do know this. It doesn't matter what his beliefs were in 1776. We know better now. If we are not going to use the intellect we possess to further our knowlege and advance technologically and socially, we might as well stop sending our children to school right now. Just let them go to church for the answers. Religion = Ignorance, Inc.

    • Brian in Tennessee

      Sure hope you change your mind about GOD before you kick off.

    • brownbear95

      We really "know better now," do we? Just observe how well we are doing since we forbid God in classrooms.

    • Patriot1776

      So for all of the advances in technology we are better off without God? Really, think about it, if the drugs have worn off enough. God created the world in 7 days and in all of the years that man has been here, we haven't even discovered a fraction of the technology that He built in. Man has "discovered" DNA, and yet God put DNA together back then. The advances in technology are merely where man has been able to use some of what God gave him. There is nothing in today's technology that can replace God, man can't create anything.

    • Martin Fee

      You are a moron, you know this right? What good has your education done? only 25% of PUBLIC HS graduates are ready for College while 67% of Religious High School students are College ready.
      Remember it is called the Theory of Evolution not the fact of evolution and is no more provable than other creation stories. Even Darwin agreed with this as he himself said his theory depended solely on the discovery of the missing link. But I forget, it's not the truth that matters, it is getting people to believe what is being said, right or wrong, that matters.
      What is really sad though is you have the same thing religious people have, FAITH in what you believe to be right but because you believe it to be right everyone who chooses to believe in something else is "Ignorant". People like you are no better than those religious people who believe God will cure their broken bones and medical treatment is not necessary. Your both so closed minded and full of hate, that the thought of someone not believing as you do burns you up inside.
      Have a wonderful day



    • loyde williams

      If Religion is Ignorance then we have a bunch with us. Mark the differance in these two words, Inorance means having no knowledge, Stupidity means knowing but willfuly living in disobedience to. Now Mr Ekstaza, if you can not know the miond of Jefferson a Mortal man How couild you possibly Know the Mind of God? If you care you can know Gods Mind by Knowing Jesus Christ, who is in Fact God Himself. Read the Book of the ages or the Holy Bible whis "Gods revealed will to mankind" Its marvelous that He would stoop to enlighten such ignoramuses as we are,dont you think ?

    • Slek

      And all those great societies that have promoted atheism such as North Korea, Communist China, Soviet Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, et al; have done such a great job in promoting humane logical societies. The fact that you promote yourself with "The" shows everyone that you have a problem with humbleness. The world needs fewer arrogant asses such as yourself who thinks the world revolves them and their misinformed opinions. Grow up you jerk.

  • Mike

    Notice how these groups always attack Christianity? I doubt it seriously if they will ever use a famous negative comment about Judaism, Hinduism or especially Islam. Pretty cowardly in my estimation.

    • Susan

      Yes they do attack and they know full well they will live after they do. Unlike the religion of Peace.... Islam. Just know God works in mysterious ways and we will never know how or why until we are with him. An attack on Christianity brings Christianity to light and I don't care what they say or do because in the end they too will know.

    • Jamie

      It will get worse, way worse, I guarantee you. And the focus of the most vicious attacks will stay on Christianity alone.
      They know something [from Alinsky] that works, and that is that most people who are undecided will believe any publicity rather than investigate for themselves. They are out to win those middle of the road, uneducated, uninterested in verifying anything, class of non-thinkers who can easily be worked up emotionally through repetition. This is the sorting and sifting of the wheat from the tares. It will become worse until at a level like a hot furnace, where the weak can't resist anymore, or do otherwise than go to the slaughter with the sheep.

    • ezout

      That's because the American Christian is the primary enemy of the "American" leftist, commie, atheist scumbag.

      They would get very little benefit from attacking the Hindi, and the Muslims currently happen to be a convenient ally to the lefty....the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

  • Brian in Tennessee

    Basically they want to promote there agendas using the fore fathers and founders as there proof but what they don't know how to do is research they lie about every thing else their attitude is well make it work. Just like all the smear adds they put out about conservatives and there agendas


    the atheist s are always screw themselves up.

  • Wayne

    A rewriting of history. Just like there was no hollicost (sp) or no 9-11.

    • philwynk

      Dude! You're on the Internet! If you don't know how to spell something, LOOK IT UP!!!


      • Mitchina

        no, there will be a 9/11 and halocaust in our history books - but it will be that America started the war on 9/11 and the it was the rich Jews who had control over all the wealth so the grassroots uprising of Hitler was the positive force against such evil that caused the holocaust.... whatever it is, it will most definitely be the FURTHEST thing from the truth.

  • Sandi Trusso

    The only "individual liberties" are clearly defined in the Bill of Rights in our US Constitution, and since law is interpreted by "original intent at the time a law was enacted", and "legal precedent" We know that if the US Constitution had meant any of the above "liberties" to be defined in accordance w/Ron Paul, these things would've been legal back then... They weren't. Furthermore, until activist judges ruled to change laws (not based on legal precedence, or original intent), there was no precedent set on legal homosexuality (in fact there were laws against it), or homosexual adoption of children, ... no laws supporting porn, or recreational drugs..... So just stop this dishonesty, Dave!

    • Melani

      Which candidate to you support, Sandi?

    • Mitchina

      "original intent at the time a law was enacted", and "legal precedent" is an oxymoron. You can't have original intent and then have a bunch of liberal judicial activists recall legal precedent as the rule of law... it's ignorant to put those two together. We should NEVER had legal precedent as ANY guiding force to determine the laws... EVER! Supreme Court rules on the constitution, PERIOD. If it ain't in there then it's a state law, not a federal one... which is why we need to reduce the federal gvt - it is as upside down as it can possibly be today from where it came from. States RULE over the Federal GVT... well, not anymore, anyway.

  • gray man

    all these anti-religious nuts seem to think thomas jefferson was the only founding father to ever exist at the beginning of this nation.

  • Keith J

    What the atheists failed to mention is that Jefferson did believe in a higher power or a "creator" as he put it. For anyone interested in the truths surrounding the beliefs of the great men who founded our nation, I recommend the book "The Fairhs of Our Fathers" by Alf J. Mapp, Jr.

    The billboard is unfair, misleading, hurtful, and, in a way, anti-American.

    • Patricia Martin

      I AGREE!

      Wherever this bilboard has been placed, those Christians who live there should SUE those who pUt it up for
      OFFENDING THEM. If a person was to put up a billboard saying something against Athesism that is the first thing
      those people would do.

      I tink they should be made to either correct what they claim Jefferson said, or take the billboard down.

  • Martin Fee

    Typical of leftist groups. DO what they want, then claim no responsibility. But if someone off the record asked them about it they would swear up and down that is was true.
    These Atheist groups are the funniest though. They run around spouting Darwin as if it is any more provable than God is.
    Darwin himself said his whole THEORY rested on finding the missing link that shows man changing from Ape to Human. yet these people run around like it's called The Fact of Evolution instead of The Theory of Evolution.
    They never even realize that they have the same thing religious people have. FAITH in what they believe.

    • Mitchina

      and faith in something they cannot prove either... kinda like Global Warming... just keep repeating the lie and sooner or later it will sound truthful enough to enough sheeple.

    • ezout

      To an atheist lefty, lies are nothing more than a political tool used to crush and demonize enemies, while furthering your own goals. There is no moral standard and there is no "right" or "wrong" to these moral relativists....which is why every leftist government is totalitarian, brutal, and murderous.

      Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.
      Vladimir Lenin

      Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy.
      Mao Tse-Tung

      A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
      Vladimir Lenin

      To rely upon conviction, devotion, and other excellent spiritual qualities; that is not to be taken seriously in politics.
      Vladimir Lenin

      One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.
      Joseph Stalin

      • Lemonysalt

        Well said ezout! It is why morality, goodness and kindness is totally lacking in the leaders of Communism, totalitariasm. Eventually, decent people could not and would not do what is necessary to stay in power, They could not gas millions or starve the neighbors. They could not take others property and kill those who object. The importance of each individual life is truly a result of faith in a God. Which is why faith must be eliminated by these butchers. The religion of atheism is necessary to make each person just a number and expendable. This is where the cruelest, fiercest evil bully succeeds. Lord protect us all!!

  • Mike McClara

    Otto Scott wrote, "James I Fool as King" my second favorite history book. I still reference it and review it. Great book. Thank you Mr. Scott.


    When your a liberal and a revisionist, facts, evidence and truth are avoidable. Global warming is another of the inconvenient lies the libs love to revel in....halfast thinking.

    • Marvs

      Your liberal and revisionist statement is correct. However, you need to rethink your view on global warming. A very prominent scientist who was certain that the global warming theories were all based on incorrect and invalid evidence recently got some major oil companies of the same bent to finance a new study to prove that global warming was a myth or a fraud. After a couple of years studying the matter and reviewing the evidence and attempting to recreate the previous studies - on Big Oil's dime - he had to conclude that he was wrong and that the global warming theories are correct. This was published in the newspapers earlier this week.

      • ONTIME

        Now all he has to do is argue with NASA and their historical data, his biggest problem to me is he is from Berzerkley, which makes him suspect.

  • Spense

    Nothing I hate worse that a liar! They in that Atheist group are without question lying trash!

    • Mitchina

      They can afford to me... they don't believe therefore they have NO CONSCIENCE or MORAL GROUND... so, yeah. Lying is like breathing to them.

  • Dave Maynard

    Jefferson became a Unitarian, not a deist. He believed in God but didn't believ ein the trinity. He NEVER would have said anything close to this statement.

    • jmj

      John Adams and Robert Paine Treat were Unitarians. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Cornelius Harnett were Episcopalians.

  • TedRWeiland

    Jefferson was worse than a Deist. According to 2 John 1:7-11, he was an antichrist: "That Freemasons and antichrists, such as Washington and Jefferson (who cut the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and ascension of Christ – what he described as a 'dunghill' – out of his cut-and-paste New Testament [Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, 24 January 1814, Lester J. Cappon, ed., "The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams" (Williamsburg, VA: Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1988) p. 384.]), could be elected as president speaks volumes of the non-Christian character of the Constitution."

    Excerpted from "Article 2: Executive Usurpation" at

    • Spense read this from the library of Congress

    • Spense

      You couldn't be more wrong......

      • TedRWeiland

        Spense, did you read what I wrote? What you sent has nothing to do with what I wrote.

        Surely you're aware of Jefferson's cut-and-past New Testament. As for what he said about some of the things he cut out of his New Testament, I provided you with the documentation, go check it out for yourself.

        • Mitchina

          Dude - You got it all wrong - Jefferson believed in FREEDOM of religion because he was VERY reilgious - not stripping it from public life or even government life. Here is the correct view on this. It's all about context.. and who the hell is JAMES HUTSON anyway? Some freaking liberal hiding in sheeps' clothing?

        • TedRWeiland

          Once again, what does this have to with what I wrote? Also, no one said Jefferson wasn't religious, just that he wasn't Christian and was, in fact, according to 2 John 1:7-11 (read it) an antichrist. Be careful that you're not viewed as participating in his sins.

    • Bill

      Reply to TedRWeiland: You are full of lies, lies, and more lies. Jefferson was no Antichrist you are lying trough your teeth. Thomas Jefferson started church services in the U.S. capital in 1800. By 1857, the largest church was the one he started. He also started church services in the War Department and the Treasure Department on Sundays. When we bought the Louisiana in 1804, there were several Christian schools in New Orleans. Many of them wrote the president asking him if they would be shut down since they now belonged to America. Jefferson wrote them back saying no, they would still get the patronage of the government to help run the Christian schools.

      Washington was no Antichrist you are lying again! George Washington said that religion and morality are the “twin pillars upon which government rests, and “let not that man claim the title of patriot who labors to undermine those pillars” (of religion and morality). Such a person is no patriot. He is no friend of this nation. He opposes everything this country was founded upon.

      On July 9, 1774, As the Colonies was seeking God’s will as to whether they should break ties with England. George Washington made this entry in his diary: “Went to church and fasted all day”. On July 9, 1776, General George Washington issued the general order to his troops stating:
      “The general hopes and trust that every officer and man will endeavor so to live, and act, as becoming a Christian Soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of this country.” Washington received no pay for serving in the American Army”.

      This country was founder by Christians rather you like it or not. If Christ had not come there would be no United States of America. That is a fact! Not an opinion!

      When you tell lies that undermine our founding fathers you are walking on the back side of me.

      • TedRWeiland

        Bill, first, I didn't say that Washington was an antichrist, but instead that he was a Freemason. He was, in fact, a Master Mason when he was sworn into the Presidency, doing so with his hand on a Bible borrowed from the Masonic Temple. One of your statements makes me wonder if you're not a Mormon, which is based upon Masonic rituals. If this be the case, then the fact that Washington was a Freemason probably won't bother you.

        Second, I am fully award of the things that you cited that Jefferson did. However, they do not negate that he identified Christ's virgin birth, resurrection, and ascension (among other things) as a "dunghill." Please don't take my word for it, go read it from Jefferson himself. When you have, I hope you will see that you need to publicly repent for publicly libeling me as a liar.

    • Marvs

      Ted, you need to re-read that passage. In my New Testament, 2 John 1:7-11 reads as follows:
      "For many deceivers have gone forth into the world who do not confess Jesus as the Christ coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the Antichrist.
      "Look to yourselves, that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may receive a full reward. Anyone who advances and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ, has not God; he who abides in the doctrine, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house, or say to him, Welcome. For he who says to him, Welcome, is sharer in his evil works."

      • TedRWeiland

        Marvs thank you for recommending I re-read 2 John 1:7-11. I did and still says what it's always said. Now, please consider the following: Is not the virgin birth, the resurrection, and ascension of Christ (what Jefferson labeled a "dunghill') integral to Christ coming in the flesh (particularly when coupled with 1 Timothy 3:16, KJV)? If his identifying those things as a "dunghill" doesn't make him an antichrist, I'm not sure what would . At the very least, he wasn't even close to be a Christian by Biblical standards.

        • Marvs

          Comment Part 1: Ted - Jefferson believed that if we could extract the basic, raw teachings of Jesus Christ from the rest of the Bible, we would have the greatest system on earth. Here is a quote from Wikipedia:

          "In an 1803 letter to Joseph Priestley, Jefferson states that he conceived the idea of writing his view of the "Christian System" ...beginning with a review of the morals of the ancient philosophers, moving on to the "deism and ethics of the Jews," and concluding with the "principles of a pure deism" taught by Jesus, "omitting the question of his deity." ... Jefferson accomplished a more limited goal in 1804 with "The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth", the predecessor to Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.[4] He described it in a letter to John Adams dated 13 October 1813: (see comment Part 2, following)

        • Marvs

          (Comment Part 2)
          In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. (See Part 3, following)

        • Marvs

          (Comment Part 3)
          There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines. [3]"

          I believe that what Jefferson was actually saying here was that extracting the very words of Jesus from the rest of the story - the "artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms" - the words of Jesus stand out like diamonds in a dunghill. (See comment Part 4, following)

        • Marvs

          (Comment Part 4)

          The emphasis is on the value of the words of Jesus which, when isolated in this fashion, make everything else appear as a dunghill in contrast. For a non-theologian who was seriously trying to extract the meaning of the Bible, I think he was on the right track and was definitely a Christian. As he concluded, if you pare the Gospels down to just the words of Christ, "There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man."

          (Sorry about splitting this up into four parts - the blog wouldn't accept my comments as a single message)

        • TedRWeiland

          "The emphasis is on the value of the words of Jesus which, when isolated in this fashion, make everything else [including the virgin birth, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Christ] appear as a dunghill in contrast."

          Marv, if this is what you call a true Christian, your own Christianity is suspect. Christians so much want these men to be Christian and the Constitution a Christian document that, it would seem, they will go to any lengths to try to convince themselves and others of these lies.

          The battle for America's soul cannot be won by making excuses for these men and the secular, humanist, polytheistic promoting (First Commandment violating) document they framed. Christians need to stop defending the apostate document and the men who framed it and instead unreservedly defend their King, His Kingdom, and His morality as found in His perfect laws and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-11).

    • Greg

      It appears that you attended public school or a liberal (dishonest) college. Nobody will convince you in this life, but you will someday know the real truth about a great president and founder.

      • TedRWeiland

        Greg, have you checked out Jefferson's own words for which I provided the documentation for in my original submission above. I would think that Jefferson is the best expert on himself and his beliefs. I've merely accepted him at his word. How about you?

  • philwynk

    Jefferson's religious convictions are known. He was a member in good standing in the Unitarian church. Unitarianism in his day was unlike modern Unitarian-Universalism; it was a largely orthodox Protestant denomination, distinguishing itself from other Protestant sects by its rejection of the Trinity (hence, "UNItarian.") Modern "Oneness Pentecostals" would have a similar position.

    In Jefferson's day, one had to sign a statement of faith in order to be made a member of a church. They did not take such statements as a formality; it would have been a serious dishonor for a man to sign such a statement attesting to believe things he did not actually believe. Thus, there existed a statement with Jefferson's signature attesting that he was NOT a Deist, but a somewhat orthodox Christian.

    It would be wrong to think that Jefferson believed what modern Evangelicals believe. But it is equally wrong to think that he believed what modern atheists believe. He was neither, but frankly, he was closer to the Evangelicals.

    • Spense

      Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), the nation's third president, was a man of unusual intelligence and faith in God. When commenting on the Constitution, whose primary writer was our fourth president, James Madison (1751-1836), a godly man and devout Christian, Jefferson spoke these words: "A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian; that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

      • TedRWeiland

        Spense, I hope the "Jesus" Jefferson spoke of and believed in is not same Jesus I hope you believe in. His "Jesus" was certainly not the one of the Bible. Please go and check out what Jefferson believed about the Biblical Jesus lest you participate in his evil and antichrist deeds.

  • Gary

    Typical morons !!

  • Malachi McCarthy

    We should expect something like this from the atheists. After all, this is all they have.... their lies. Of course the stupid will be believe anything. It was obvious to most he never said this. America is under assault from many different quarters. It will take quite an effort to restore her to her former glory. I never thought I would live to see the day, when the radicals, left-wingers, crazies, malcontents, lazy, and communists would elect their man President. They succeeded but it is up to us to vote in an American in the next election. A man or woman who will put America first and put Americans back to work. There is a reason why Communism is no longer a world political philosophy that rules nations. It does not work. Atheism is the religion of the Godless commies.

  • Spense

    God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever. - Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Memorial

    Thomas Jefferson--the supposed poster child for the left's war on all things Christian--proposed for our original national symbol an image of Moses parting the Red Sea, with the inscription, "Defiance of Tyranny is Obedience to God."

  • Red_Ruffansore

    And we're stunned that liberal godless bastages would get it completely wrong? It's like being surpised that all of Obama's policies are failures, a sentient being would have understood it was ordained to be.

  • Hedyd4me

    Why would any group pay to have a misquote on a billboard for something they say they don't believe in ? If they are so convinced (which I'm not convinced they are) that there is no God - why do they constantly raise such a fuss ?
    " The fool says in his heart , "there is no God" , they are corrupt , their deeds are vile." Psalm 14:1
    These people are so obtuse , they don't even seem to realize , that by telling others that God does not exist - they confirm His existance just by using His name.

  • Bob Hutson

    The word of God says..." The fool, has said in his heart,there is no God" Unless they change i can only see one place they are going after death...How sad not to believe in God or anything for that matter. What a sad and terrible life they must lead.

  • ShortyS

    This is typical for liberals ... if history doesn't support their cause, change it. That's whats happening in our educational system and it's ruining this country.

  • Marlin

    Jefferson may not have been a Christian in the strictist since but he was a relgionist and not an aetheist. He is often misquoted or or misinterpreted. People should do better research before make these claims. But they probably think that the rest of us are too stupid to know better or to lazy to check the facts.

  • I drink TEA

    What do you get when you cross and African Man with a French Woman?

    ... Not much

  • Diana

    Thomas Jefferson wrote that Jesus Christ's "system of morality was the most benevolent and sublime...ever taaught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the ancient philisophers."(Quoted in F. Forrester Church, "The Gospel According to Thomas Jefferson,")

    Jefferson letter to Benjamin Rush - With respect to the "genuine precepts of Jesus, I am a real Christina...sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others."

  • Carl G. Oehling

    These quotes and discussion remind me of the passage: "a wise man listens to a fool, but a fool won't listen to a wise man". Jefferson was intelligent and sifted out the wise principles for living in society presented in the Bible. Unfortunately, miracles are outside of science and human understanding, so he chose to discount them as truth.

  • Jay Talsma

    I think these atheists took a quote by someone else and then attributed it to Thomas Jefferson because they know that the phrase, "separation of church and state" originated from him. This way they can dubiously convince themselves that Jefferson was mostly like them. Actually, Jefferson moonlighted while President with a second job. He was Chairman of the Committee on Education. He mandated that there must be 2 books taught in public schools: The Bible and the Thomas Watts Hymnal.There is more interesting "stuff" about Jefferson on my website: ...and more founding fathers qoutes can be found on this page:

  • @Tzor

    Clearly there is something wrong with the quote. It's not very Jefferson like. I tried to google the expression and found something similiar but note the difference "I do not find in our superstitions of Christianity ..." Much in the same way that he edited out the "miracles" in his bible he believed that one should approach God through reason. Although somewhat influenced by deists, he was more strongly influenced through unitarianists. ...

    • @Tzor

      Here is a quote (not from Jeffeson) from the Monticello web site, "Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being, but this was not the triune deity of orthodox Christianity. He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ, but as he writes to William Short on October 31, 1819, he was convinced that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the 'outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man.'" Jefferson is clearly no poster child for Christianity, but he is no poster child for athiesm. "On June 25, 1819, he wrote to Ezra Stiles Ely, 'I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.'"

  • Irma from MA

    It would be fitting to put another billboard next to the "Skeptics" billboard with the following in large, glowing letters: "BACKYARD SKEPTICS ARE TOO STUPID TO ACTUALLY QUOTE ANYTHING SAID OR WRITTEN BY THOMAS JEFFERSON BECAUSE THEY CAN'T READ OR DON'T KNOW HOW TO VERIFY INFORMATION - THE RESULT IS THAT THEY WALLOW IN LIES AND MISINFORMATION" --- poor dears, pray that they will eventually see the Light!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Marvs

      It's not really ignorance - It's intentional deceipt! You should read Ann Coulter's "Demonic" or Aaron Klein's "The Manchurian President". Totally frightening!

  • Shamus McQuade

    Liberals like to rewrite history and put their own spin of interpretations of how they WANT it to be. They consistently make bold statements without having all the facts a sign of arrogance and ignornace which by the way go hand in hand.

    • R. Cook

      It is called confirmational bias. It is present in all of liberalism from their contorting the original meaning of our Constitution, their falsifying climate research, sipnning economic reality and flat out lying to keep their usefull idiots supporting them.

  • http://MSN.COM Mark

    There would be no Ass-theists With-out YAHWEH(God) / There would be no Ass-theists.

    The deprivation of the Ass- theists mind has no bounds, their narcissistic indulgences rule over logic, reason and reality.

    Please pray that their hard hearts be softened by their Creator Yeshua (Jesus) before it is to late.
    With-out a knowledge of truth (Yeshua – the Truth, the Light, the Way) you never make sense.
    The Bible is true, salvation is ONLY by Yeshua.

    Dear Ass-theists; make the good confession:

    Believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Yeshua(Jesus).

    Call on him to be saved:
    Yeshua, Im a sinner.
    Yeshua, you save sinners.
    Yeshua, save me now.

  • Jonathan Gartner

    Liberals cannot tell the total truth for it never supports them. They either like to misquote or they take facts out of context. Their favorite it seems is to take Ronald Reagan and try to bend his words to their usage it does not work

  • David

    An atheist can say all day long that they believe there is NO God and have every right to think that. Why do they have to flaunt their UN-belief on those that DO believe there is a Good and loving God. Are they afraid that God will not accept their argument that they can have absolutely NO FAITH in him because they can't see, feel or touch him. Maybe if they tried to get in touch with him in a truthful way they will see that he will not hide himself from them. Give it a only have eternity to either thank him or curse him!!!

  • John

    When you have to lie to get you point have no point!

  • Bill Kerschner

    Friends, let's pay the atheist clowns back for what they did in this lie of a billboard sign. Pool our money together and place our own billboards showing recent statements from FORMER ATHEISTS who now say that they have changed their minds and now believe in God!!! There have been several prominent ahteist and even former leaders of atheist groups who have publically stated that they were wrong! A conservative Parliament leader in England recently to Americans to speak out now whenever a lie like the one from the Atheist Group here is spoken or wind up like England in another 20 years. Only 9% attend Christian churches there.

  • tommy boy

    Tear down this sign. These people are nuts. They need a meaningful occupation. It's none of their business what believers believe. Mind your own business and I'll talk to them on their death bed mhere most athiests seem to have a revalation.

  • Lloyd Revalee

    If one reads the Communist manifesto, they will find that they wish to abolish Christianity, alter the history of a country to suit their agenda, abolish public ownership of property, control the education and labor systems, and most important of all, control the press. They have been working on all of these goals for years, and seem to have had little trouble in controlling our supposedly "free press". For the most part, we do not have any press, or news agencies. What we have is a bunch of writers, using our radio and TV as a means to sell their books, and mislead the people with their negative works of criticism.

    • http://MSN.COM Mark

      Very informative and true.

  • PastorCarmen

    What was the first book Jefferson wanted the schools to use Basic Instructions Before leaving Earth.

  • DrRGP

    For one thing, the punctuation is wrong, resulting in a run-on sentence. Jefferson knew better than that.

  • Try Harder

    There is no hell or fallen angels in the OT for starters. Your version you hold so dear was raped and mangled by the church who added Persian dualism. They stripped the parts that were too difficult to make it accessible to all. And this is the supposed word of god? Give me a break.

    The NT also conflicts with the OT on names of people and locations. If the NT is the word of god, how can it conflict with the OT?

    The most compelling is your version of satan. ah-satan, was an angel who did gods bidding and tested men. Which included, not so positive things. There is nothing about rebelling against god. It's also quite insulting to jews to claim an angel could rebel. Angels were created for a soul purpose of serving God. They are all holy and spiritual in matter. THEY POSSESS NO FREE WILL. To state otherwise, is to state God is not all powerful and what he created for a specific reason doesn't have to do what is was created for.

    • David

      So who is your teacher that you are so learned of the Trinity of all knowing God. Have you ever prayed to God for a miracle and see it happen before your eyes? How do you explain the unexplainable? Where does deception come from? You believe not from faith but a teacher who does not know ANY truth. I dare you to earnestly pray for God to enlighten you with the truth of who he is and cast out of your mind fear and unbelief and look for the truth of Jesus Christ. I have faith if you do this IN TRUTH, he will reveal to your mind (soul) his goodness and merciful kindness.
      What do you have to lose?????

  • AmericansRon2U

    All I know is that this great country called The United States of America, was NOT founded by atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus. It was founded on Christian principles and the evidence is marked throughout our nation's buildings and monuments. Most Americans believe in God regardless of their preferred religion. So maybe the atheists should go establish their own country somewhere and leave the rest of us alone. I'm tired of their endless whining and ranting...don't go way mad, little atheists, just go away!

  • Lindy

    Leave it to them to misquote somebody. Whether it was or was not said by Jefferson doesn't mean jack crap now does it? Some lost man's opinion or right to free speech. Has nothing to do with the Bible being the real Truth of things. Bad as scientists who are always trying to misconstrue or disprove God's Word because their finite minds cannot fathom the truth that God is God and He has and can do and make anything out of nothing and anyway He deems fit to accomplish it. He does a lot through men, who have no clue He is doing it through them , to accomplish his end goals. Duh!!

    Can't wait until they all come face to face with Him someday and realize, by Gosh, The Lord God was right afterall and he sends them out of His sight for all eternity to that eternal Hot spot there is no escaping..................................

  • PastorCarmen

    Why do Atheist fight Jesus Christ the creator of the world if they do not Believe in God? Atheist never Be-little Islam for their god I want to know why. They never go after any other Religion other than Jewish and Christians Faith. For they are the same GOD>

    • Bill

      Reply to PastorCarmen: The atheist go after the Jewish and Christian religion because that is what our country was founded upon. That is the foundation of our country and they want to destroy it.

      If Christ had not come there would be no United States of America. That is a fact and not an opinion.

  • Mike

    I wonder what Atheists thinks about their reason of being here on earth. What happens to the soul when they pass on? Where did their soul come from? Can all the billions who lived before them and believed in God be wrong? Their IQ has to be below 50 which makes them either idiots or imbeciles. They will have an unpleasant surprise waiting for them when they die.

  • http://aol Ray Gillespie

    Where did God come from?

    • David

      God always was! Why is this sooo hard for people to comprehend? He created everything by perfect design. God does not make mistakes...people do! Adam and Eve brought sin and imperfection into the world, but we have an advocate (Jesus Christ) to be accepted back to his will that NO ONE needs to be separated from him for all eternity...and gnashing of teeth can't be too cool.

  • Moonshine

    This statement is more likely attributable to Obama or his sponsor George Soros, as neither is a Christian.

  • Jeff Miller

    In his letter to Benjamin Rush, Jefferson wrote, "I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other."

    In The Jefferson Bible, Jefferson included only what was attributable to Jesus, and left out everything else. And it ends at the crucifixion.

  • Jimbo

    Leads me to recall the age-old definition of a dead atheist: all dressed up and no place to go

  • William Krebs

    Belief in God is a personal thing, one that brings comfort to the believer and should be respected. I for one know full well that Jesus is the Christ and He is the only thing that brings ultimate truth and purpose to the universe. That being said, it is my belief, personal and should be respected. I do not ask others to believe as I do, I ask they respect that I believe as I do. Soon enough we will all know if God is real or not, when that time comes there will be no more to say, so for those that believe take comfort in your belief, and to those that do not, take comfort in your convictions.

  • Dani

    It's another obvious attempt to shake their fists in the face of God, to say, "You don't exist". The fact is, they DO believe there is a God, but are too proud to bow their knees to him. It's all about pride. These cowards would never post
    a sign declaring Muslims to be wrong in their faith. They know Christians are easy targets because they are secure in
    their faith (absolute) and would not harm anyone who chooses to deny God and Christ. Muslims would come after them with a sharp sword for even printing the word 'Mohammed'. This group of atheists could be more accurately defined as a sad, sad group of cowards.

  • Freedom`

    Ever notice that an atheist defines his belief system by stating his relationship with God?

    • David

      In one moment in time they made a decision to not believe in God. Before that time happened...did they believe in God and if so, what traumatic thing happened for them to become angry at God and start their dis-belief?

  • Bill

    CHURCH IN THE U.S. CAPITAL: Many people are surprised to learn that the United States Capitol regularly served as a church building; a practice that began even before Congress officially moved into the building and lasted until well after the Civil War.
    The approval of the Capitol for church was given by both the House and the Senate, with House approval being given by Speaker of the House, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, and Senate approval being given by the President of the Senate, Thomas Jefferson. Interestingly, Jefferson's approval came while he was still officially the Vice- President but after he had just been elected President
    U. S. Rep. Manasseh Cutler, who attended church at the Capitol, recorded in his own diary that "He [Jefferson] and his family have constantly attended public worship in the Hall." Mary Bayard Smith, another attendee at the Capitol services, confirmed: "Mr. Jefferson, during his whole administration, was a most regular attendant." She noted that Jefferson even had a designated seat at the Capitol church: "The seat he chose the first Sabbath, and the adjoining one (which his private secretary occupied), were ever afterwards by the courtesy of the congregation, left for him and his secretary." Jefferson was so committed to those services that he would not even allow inclement weather to dissuade him; as Rep. Cutler noted: "It was very rainy, but his [Jefferson's] ardent zeal brought him through the rain and on horseback to the Hall." Other diary entries confirm Jefferson's attendance in spite of bad weather.

  • John Gaver

    They're wrong. They've been told. They aren't doing anything about it. So what?

    This happens every day, especially where historical quotations are concerned. Let me give you just one very famous example. Have you ever heard of the Observation on Democracy, by Alexander Fraser Tytler Lord Woodhouselee. That's the one that traces the progression of Democracy From Bondage, to Spiritual Faith, to Great Courage, to Liberty, to Abundance, to Selfishness, to Complacency, to Apathy, to Dependency, and finally, back into Bondage. Well guess what? Tytler was a real judge in Scotland, but there is no record of him having ever said or wrote anything similar to that.

    I can't count the number of times that I have received that in an email or seen it on a website. Every time I see that, I drop a short email to the sender or site owner, directing them to a site that breaks down the likely history of that statement. To date, I know of only two that have changed their citation in any way. In fact, about every 10 to 12 months, one of the conservative organizations that has sent me emails thanking me for correcting them, still sends me the same incorrect citation. Well-meaning, but misguided conservatives continue to send me information suggesting that Hitler imposed gun control, long after I have corrected them, with historical proof. The problem is that they find the citation or misapplication useful, so they go with what works. I can cite you probably a dozen other proven or strongly suspected misquotes of famous people ranging from Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, to George Carlin and Ted Nugent.

    I find that attitude to be disingenuous, regardless of which side of the political spectrum it comes from. Therefore, I suggest that we police our own house, before we jump on those who use the same less-than-reputable tactics, to oppose us.

    If we demand accuracy from those who oppose us, then we must above all, hold those who stand with us, to the same or higher standard. That's why I always try to correct conservatives, when they misapply a quotation. After all, we can't expect the other side to play fair, if we set the standard lower. Besides, our arguments are strong enough that we don't need to misquote or misapply a quote, to prove our point. When we do, we will sooner or later get caught and that will weaken our position.

    When we try to tell the other side to play fair, while we routinely look the other way, when people on our side are doing the same thing, rather than looking like good people demanding justice, we only look like hypocrites.

    Certainly, I think that we should call these people on their distortions, but only after we clean up our own house. JMHO.

    • Huh

      So it sounds like you are defending these God haters and saying that conservatives should correct themselves. You then attempt to tidy up your mischief with"clean up your own house?" Nice sheep costume.

      So hitler never signed any order to to extend limits of firearms to German citizens upon supreme emergence of the Nazi party and his power?

    • Bill Weston

      Mr. Gaver: I posted a comment stating that Thomas Huxley actually made the statement on the billboard. I'm not totally sure of my claim and I said so in my post. If you have any clarifying info, I would appreciate hearing from you.

    • Major Daniel P. Corcoran

      Actually, I believe that Mr Gaver is correct in his direction of how we as a conservative group should act and present ourselves. I didn't take it as his approving of an Atheist group's promotion but as a lesson that we should be double sure of our facts before presenting them to the public. Incorrect information passed on as based on fact when it actually isn't does seem to mislead an uninformed individual that we are only trying to justify our standing with BS instead. We need to be accurate. It is too easy today to cross check and verify a statement. Why should we lower our standards and present ourselves as a group of incompetents? There is strength in integrity and knowledge based on facts not fiction or fantasy. We need to strive to present a positive role model that is above reproach. We need to ensure that our information is correct before we try to correct others' I hope that everyone has a great day! May God Bless

  • Ron BUice

    Obviously, atheists are deadly afraid of God and Christians. Like supporters of Obama, they have to keep re-enforcung each other to help drive away the Truth which "burns" them and their life becomes a struggle against the enemy, Jesus Christ. Jesus talks a lot about them in the New Testamnet and prays for their souls. As each one approaches the end, they often admit to themselves that Satan has deceived them for their entire life and it is impossible to correct the wrongs they have done against Christians. Fortunately for them, Jesus is patient and it's never too late to repent...

  • M.K.

    WHY DO THE HEATHEN RAGE? Could it be, they want only their atheist faith in the public square? In the public schools God given morals is out and the religion of the secular humanist Darwinism faith is in. It is a scientific fact that after God given morals were taken out the crime rate has gone up. Their faith (the atheist faith) is costing the tax payers millions and millions of dollars for more police and jails to put the criminals in. Their faith has murdered millions and millions of innocent people. Hitler and the Nazis, the bloody murdering communist of Russia, China and through out the world, all of the atheist faith.

    The Guinness Book of Worlds Records list communist bloody murdering Mao of China of the atheist faith as the greatest mass murder of 26.3 million innocent people.
    In 1961 the Supreme Court referred to the faith as a religion.

  • Owen Barnes

    Atheist have misquoted everything since their conception, they are the children of the father of lies!!!

  • Spyder dalton

    who needs facts to make a statement? it's so yesterday... Atheists, and liberals all have the same sociopathic personality disorders. they think they are the highest of all creation in entitlement.

  • Gringo Infidel

    Typical moronic distortion of facts subjugated to their own perverse goals masquerading as 'evidence' of their untenable beliefs.


  • Butchy Baby

    Jefferson was the dam fool who started the Demorcate Party. I live in Nashville and have be to his house and one of the
    first thing they tell you is he started the party. I don't care one way or the other what he said. All I know is this if he was alive
    today, he would hang himself for what he started. Being a southern gentleman, that would utterly kill him. I just wonder if
    if ole' Andy is turning in his gave.

  • Raymond Olson

    Thomas Jefferson did say something to the effect "That we have more to fear by putting our financial affaris in the hands of bankers that any foreign enemy" That has seemed to play out. WHAT WE SEE TODAY IS UNLIMITED INFLATION AND THE ULTIMATE NATIONAL RUIN OF OUR NATION. This was said by a Republican Senator, Elihu Root, of New York in December 1913. The distruction of the hosing market was made in Washington, financed by Washington DC.

  • AlanB

    Miserable atheists. Jealous they lost their spirituality (if they ever had it). They think of themselves as the kid in the back of the bus telling the younger kids there's no Santa Claus.

  • Jim

    The political correctness liberals are working overtime to destroy all writings,laws,teachings and true morals,christian teaching, laws and principals of the history of the United States of America as fast as they can to destroy American History. Stop them now from this treasonist act to destroy American History. Socialism,Communisism,Islamic and other terriosts are working overtime to destroy us and our history. Hitler did this very thing to control his people. Our Hitler is at it now!

  • Silas Longshot

    Luv it when these clowns do this to themselves.

    Better to remain silent and thought a fool, than 'to print a huge billboard' and remove all doubt!

    • Ole Vet

      Have pity on atheists! When they bang their thumb with a hammer, or twist an ankle, they can't mention the Name of Someone who doesn't exist as an epithet. All they can say is, "Drat!", "Darn!", "Jehosephat!", "Kelly Clarkson!" or similar~! The worst thing they can say is, "Goshdarnit!" This is really wimpy-sounding and inadequate when you stub your toe!

  • auntiecoosa

    "I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
    --The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.

  • mikey

    Well you know, If you tell the same lie often enough people will believe it to be Truth.
    I love it when someone will tell you it must be true because it was in THIS BOOK. "Hans Christian Andersen" and "The Brothers Grimm" wrote a few very popular books, but I don't think much of it had any truth in it.

  • Joyceann

    Perhaps God whispered in their ears while doing the billboard - There is only one sin that can't be forgiven, and that is to believe he doesn't exist. How can he forgive you if you don't hear him. I'm sorry for you sons, as I can't help but look around at folks and I just don't believe my soul would be honored to do any good in their hands.

  • W Smith

    Ted Ted Ted. You and those of your ilk will never get it or accept the fallacies exposed by those of your kind again and again.

  • Transaction7

    I’m a retired lawyer, with civil and criminal trial and appellate experience up through non-capital murder, and thus somewhat of a trained and professional expert on evidence. The professor and author from whom I took Evidence in law school at Vanderbilt had taught future Supreme Court Justices and others at Harvard before moving there, and is quoted approvingly in Supreme Court opinions. Otto Scott, a former atheist or agnostic, and a reporter and analytical mind who came to faith in Christ through his own reading of the allegedly conflicting and error-filled Bible, cited in this article, is absolutely correct. No honest witness would give his own account of an emotion-laden event in the same words every time, and four different witnesses’ accounts would certainly be expected to have differences. Their being exactly alike would be suspicious. Go back and read the accounts, plural, of creation in Genesis, apart from how literal or figurative each is supposed to be.

    Mark Twain argued that religion arose “when the first con man met the first fool,” but I’ve represented some of the more notorious big-time con men who made the front page of the Wall Street Journal, and no con man would include events that would require obvious deviation from well-known natural laws, from the sun standing still or going backward to Jesus’ resurrection from the dead and eating and talking on earth before ascension, in his scam spiel. More importantly, nobody would put their own life on the line and sacrifice it, in the most horrifying ways, to perpetuate a lie, and the earliest Christians, many of whom secular as well as religious history say did just that, would have been witnesses and known whether this miraculous account was true or a lie. The fruits of Christianity, from the end of gladiatorial entertainment to the abolition of slavery to the founding of most of the educational, child care, and medical care institutions in America, offer further evidence. Look at the people, such as the author of Ben Hur, and many others, who had been convinced that Christianity and the Bible were bunk until they read the Bible carefully in preparing to write books debunking it, and were converted. C. S. Lewis and American author Josh McDowell, author of Evidence that Demands a Verdict, are worth reading on this. Of course Christianity, like atheism, requires a “leap of faith,” but I challenge any atheist to provide the credible “scientific” evidence, meeting even the threshold standards for admission of scientific evidence in court spelled out by the Supreme Court, for the theory that we evolved from non-living matter much less from nothing. On the other hand, there is clear and convincing evidence that people were attracted to the amoral implications of Darwin’s theory (which preceded the discovery of DNA and its “double helix” and much of the rest of modern biology and genetics) because they saw it as freeing them from all moral standards. In the law of evidence, that’s called bias and motive to lie and may be argued for impeachment.

    Where do fundamental human rights, enforceable against the government and a majority of the people, originate, if you start with an atheistic premise rather than what Jefferson, writing the Declaration of Independence after long discussion by some of the brightest and best educated men in history, called “unalienable rights” with which individuals were “endowed by their Creator,” according to “the laws of nature and of nature’s God”? They are guaranteed, but certainly not granted, by the federal government, a theory which would render them alienable and illusory. By the way, one poster is wrong: the Ninth Amendment confirms the position in the Declaration of Independence that there are indeed unenumerated fundamental, Constitutionally guaranteed, rights of individuals (and maybe groups) enforceable against the sovereign. My legal experience and research, including reading a lot of the history and background of the drafting and ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and personal experience, convince me that personal privacy is one of these, essential to the concept of ordered liberty, but that abortion on demand is not.

  • Chris P

    Oh dear - and they even admitted it. While the Republicans just go on lying about almost everything despite telling us atheists what wonderful Christians they are.

  • grandmaliberty

    not worth a comment...

  • JulianBF

    It seems to be a sign of the times, if you don't like the facts change them. Also if you need support for your facts feel free to make up some statistics. If caught, ignore them, people seem to believe what they want anyway.

    • Bill Weston

      Actually, if you can't dazzle with brilliance you baffle with b---s---!

      • T-Texas

        BS may get you to the top but it won't keep you there.

    • Baloney Dtector

      Agreed. True to their progressive ideological form, the atheists simply refuse to admit the truth when its spotlighted, and instead use repetition to brainwash any hapless, mushbrained souls willing to listen. They are the wellspring of political correctness and pathetic in their attempts to persuade the rest of us that they are scintillating in their observations of the world. Bankrupt and doomed.

  • Roy S. Acryin

    Atheists are liars and won't back down even when their lies are exposed!

  • Mandy

    For Bill, you have my utmost respect sir as a "True Christian and True Patriot" Thank you for writing your response, as I truly enjoyed reading it. God Bless!

  • Chris

    Its ridiculous that this great nation which was founded with the statement "In God we trust" and "One Nation Under God", must be subjected to this ignorance! What's sad is that Christians aren't standing up to protect God and Country. Now is the time to take a stand for what is right for our country, our future and our families. is the place to start.

  • Jerry

    If I were Jefferson's blood relative I would sue the heck out of them for this! I smell money!

  • poogymom

    Once the Left screwed up Thomas Jefferson's intent in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, the Left needs to cover that Lie with more Lies. Thomas Jefferson's letter was to put the Danbury Baptists' fears to rest over making one religion as the national religion, like Church of England. It was not to strike God out of everything. To go back and change their position would require admitting the Left lied about everything else as well. The Left is stuck in their own lying mire, and we all can easily recognize where their ridiculous thinking has taken them.

  • JerryM

    I wonder, As an atheist grows older and nears death, if they start to fear that there might be a God.

  • Bill Weston

    Actually, I believe the statement on the billboard was made by Thomas Huxley in his book "Brave New World" and not Jefferson. My memory of Huxley's writing has faded so I could well be wrong with this claim. However, the statement sounds a lot more like Huxley than it does Jefferson.

  • GC

    Mind citing your "historical proof" that there was no gun control in Nazi Germany.

    Let Me quote this site -

    Carefully shelved by law librarians, the 1938 issues of this German government publication had gathered a lot of dust. In the 'Reichsgesetzblatt' issue for the week of March 21, 1938, was the official text of the Weapons Law (March 18, 1938). It gave Hitler's Nazi party a stranglehold on the Germans, many of whom did not support the Nazis. We found that the Nazis did not invent "gun control" in Germany. The Nazis inherited gun control and then perfected it: they invented handgun control.

    The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb "gang activity," violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? "Gun control" did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.

    The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they 'lawfully' took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not "reliable." Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.

    In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other "reliable" people.

    The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 -- one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS) savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout Germany -- new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.

  • paulrph1

    Yeah... had a Christian misquoted an Atheist, we would have been branded as outright liars. But for atheists, they just brush it aside as a "mistake".

    Yet they continue to diatribe their mistake as truth. We know they have no conscience because they do not believe in God. It is OK for them to lie, cheat, misrepresent because that is what they are. How can they live with themselves.

  • karen

    All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
    Thomas Paine I am a true believer in God but George Washington was a 33 degree Mason and a true Mason believes in Gnostics as I do.

  • Pikemaster

    There is Only One truth , it is in Jesus !! God Bless

  • Richard Holmes

    These devil spawn will say anything with one shred of truth to dupe the masses. They are the sickest form of corruption that plagues menkind. They must be eliminated at all costs.

  • CarolsKey

    The zealous attitude of the atheists appears as if they want to convince not us (Christians) as to the absence of God, but affirm themselves and prop up their own confidence in their fallacious thinking. Regardless, no "pearls" will I throw their way, because I know what they are and unfortunately their path will lead to their very demise. May God have mercy on their souls.

  • Ted

    WHAT A LIE ! ! ! ! ! Mr. Jefferson was a devoted christian activists !!!! Go back to history and read about close !!!!

    Someone should contact the Jefferson Foundation and sue for false / degrading our Founding Fathers !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Ted

    LAW should be put in place against lies about our Founding Fathers who were christian activists !!!!! Go and research in history cause history do not rewrite itself !

    Remember.........Satan is the master of deception !!!!!!!!!

  • Ted

    PLEASE ! PLEASE ! whoever sees this !!!! Research about the JESUITS and connect all the dots. Trust me these are the ones that controls the world-----please research intensely ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ( Secret Terrorists........Bill Hughes )

  • DeeLCee

    Are atheists that desperate to find material in order to discredit Christianity?
    There are many Christian individuals and churches out there that can afford to have a billboard message posted on a regular basis, either as for rebuttal or inspirational scriptures. So far I haven't seen any signs to rebut any of the atheists claims. Surely someone in the church could do this, or have they and I just haven't seen it.
    We as Christians have the truth on our side, it's not that difficult to answer or rebutt anything atheists throw at us. We should be sharing this truth on billboards across this nation!

  • Blair Franconia, NH

    Jefferson NEVER said that. He was a Deist____nor an atheist or a Christian.



  • Blair Franconia, NH

    Jefferson wasn't an atheist. He wasn't a Christian either. He was a Deist and he was anti-Unitarian. The ironic thing? The Bibles
    the Unitarian-Univeralist Church gives to its youths are called Jefferson Bibles.

  • Cheeto Sareus

    Whatever Jefferson was he was a better man than the Atheists who lied on the bill board.