Religious Fundamentalism in Orwell and Pynchon

[jbor]

on 21/5/03 3:18 AM, Michael Joseph wrote:

> I didn't intend it to
> be.  I turned to the earliest definition because of Ari's use of
> "tradition." I assumed he meant to evoke an earlier definition, one that
> has the authority of tradition. If he meant 'usage' he should have said
> so. I think "tradition" is disingenuous, don't you agree?

Wow. Now you're twisting Fleischer's remark about "the traditional English
sense of the word" to try to make it mean something else entirely, in order
to justify your original disingenuousness.

>> crusade n. 1. (often capitalised) any of the military expeditions undertaken
>> in the 11th, 12th, or 13th centuries by the Christian powers of Europe  2.
>> (formerly) any holy war undertaken on behalf of a religious cause  3. a
>> vigorous and dedicated action or movement in favour of a cause  4. to
>> campaign vigorously for something  5. to go on a crusade  (Collins)
>> 
> Don't know what dictionary you're using

Collins, as I noted. American, I believe.

>> Meanings 3 and 4 are pretty standard ones
> and the word is used, like
>> "homeland", in common parlance.
> 
> You know the word homeland is contested here so it's a dicey example.

Whether or not it is contested is beside the point. It's in the dictionary,
it's used in common parlance, more particularly it has been used in
political rhetoric of all stripes for a long time, and it doesn't denote the
Patriot Act.

> I was
> actually less interested in the term than in Ari's incoherent definition.
> But you've made a good defense of it, and I'm grateful. Thanks.

You're welcome. I thought you seemed more interested in using the word to
prove conclusively that the U.S. is a theocracy and that the world is
currently in the thick of a "religious war".

best