Then please post the letter so other readers can form their own impression of its meaning.
You rip a phrase possibly out of context, and assert that your understanding of it is the only way it can be understood.
I'm not buying. And talk is cheap. Especially nowadays.
1797 had 365 days in it. On which day did John Adams post this letter? To whom was it written? What was the context?
When you've done your homework, please do feel free to get back to us. You evidently expect your readers to simply accept your "authority" on such matters. But I want to see your evidence.
All the more so when some finger talk
is all over the water front from the opposite of what most people think words mean to every weasel meaning possible to claim for every nuance of every word in the most convoluted ways possible . . .
all the while pretending to be erudite, wise, logical etc.
What a farce.
He is referring to the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797, Article 11 of which reads in full: “ Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
You sure use that word a lot in a subtly caustic way. Such as (#27) in reference to T. jefferson "But you seem pretty sure about his "credentials." It must be nice to have such certainly so cheaply...."
To remind you, this was in your reply to my #24, and neither in #24, nor in my only other post (#21) did I even mention Thomas Jefferson! But you did!
Do you relaize how silly it is to mock me for being "pretty sure of [jefferson's] crednetials" and that "it must be nice to have such certainy so cheaply" without me even mentioning Jefferson?!? That's pathetic.