Religious Fundamentalism in Orwell and Pynchon

[jbor]

>>> 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.

on 21/5/03 10:53 AM, Michael Joseph wrote:
 
> 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"

But he didn't claim this at all. He was saying that the term "crusade" was
meant in a general way. As in: A crusade against poverty. A crusade against
unemployment. A crusade against crime.

> 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.

Sure. But are you denying that the word "crusade" can be used in a secular
context?

>>>> 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 only erased your meditations on the use of the term "homeland" because I
wasn't addressing them in my reply, and they didn't seem relevant to the
topic at hand. But from now on I'll make sure to leave your posts intact.

best

>>> 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.
> 
> 
>