Religious Fundamentalism in Orwell and Pynchon

[Otto]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Joseph" <mjoseph at rci.rutgers.edu>
To: "Otto" <ottosell at yahoo.de>
Cc: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: Religious Fundamentalism in Orwell and Pynchon

> > Subject: Re: Religious Fundamentalism in Orwell and Pynchon
> > >
> > > On Tue, 20 May 2003, Otto wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think it's just a bad & unseemly (nice word) metaphor
> > > > that has been used and withdrawn when it became obvious
> > > > that there are connotations one hadn't thought of before.
> > > >
> > > It's not the connotation, it's the meaning of the word (ut infra)
> > >
> >
> > But it's not the only meaning, the word "crusade" has other
> > connotations in common language too. People lead crusades
> > against the roaches in their kitchen.
> >
> Whom do they lead, Otto?
>
> > > > Semantically "crusade" isn't that far from "jihad" so I think
> > > > there havebeen a lot of crocodile tears wept by those
> > > > complaining about it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > yes? crocodile tears?
> >
> > I was thinking of complaining Muslims here who in their privacy
> > might appreciate suicide bombings.
> >
> Ah, I missunderstood. Thank you. It seems that sanctioning murder is
> always the point.

Yes of course, taking the cross in order to free the holy land has been
sanctified murder, like praising those who take a C4-belt to blow up some
innocents.

> To protest against it is to be insincere because, if
> one properly understands how things are, one is protesting against one's
> own security.

Of course this is not true, even today, but a millennium ago the only
protesters against the crusades, I assume, have been heretics in the eyes of
the church.

> Does one therefore condone spiraling acts of reciprocal
> violence?
>

Well, El Kaida, Hamas & Islamic Jihad do.

Otto