Religious Fundamentalism in Orwell and Pynchon

[Michael Joseph]

> > 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.
>
No, holy cow, Jbor, I'm not doing anything like that. My sense of
tradition is grounded in comparative religion, in Eliade (Allen, Valk,
Rennie, Bean). When Ari claims 'traditional authority' for "broad cause"
I just smell, like, a powerful odor of mendacity, but, hey, maybe that's
just the usual political b.s.



> >> 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.
>ah, yes, abridged, synchronic. Permit me an ironic though nonetheless
grating collegial sneer.

> >> 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 agree with your last point, but I'm not yet convinced that homeland,
even if it denotes just the land of one's home, doesn't carry the taint of
nativism, but the heck with it. I'll write it, you'll erase it, so let's
move on.

 > > 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".
>
Hardly. I'm interested in exploring the explanatory power of this belief
within the context of rigid Fundamentalist foreign policy. (I say rigid to
distinguish between people who say they interpret scripture literally and
people who insist upon applying such an interpretation to the regulation
of sectarian life.) Ok. Enough of me. Goodnight Michael Joseph.