Re: OfB.biz: It's Official: SCO Declares IP Jihad on Linux

Hi Andreas,
> Sort of like "bin Laden" was blended into "Iraq", now "terrorist" is being
> blended into "Muslim".  It's even worse what comes out of Hollywood - but I
> guess we can be pretty sure it is not Muslims that control the content of
> Hollywood propaganda ;-).

  No, that's true. Although, I suspect Evangelicals have more to fear from 
Hollywoods propaganda than Muslims do. That's my sense anyway from that 
corner of the view.

> Notice for example that the horrors of the Crusade have been converted by
> Christians into "Just" wars.  

Hmm... I haven't heard that before. Where are they known as "just" wars? Even 
in my church, when they did a Church history course, they were presented 
uncomplimentary light. 

They weren't unprovoked, considering the Church of the Holy Sepechure was 
destroyed as a harbinger to the crusades, but it was rebuilt (courtesy of the 
ruler of Jerusalem at the time, IIRC) prior to the crusades, and no matter 
what, what happened was definitely an overreaction.

I sympathize with the desire to control the holy land (clearly something most 
from all three major western religions would like), but I certainly don't 
endorse the crusades then any more than I would endorse a crusade today. (And 
please, don't try to some how bring Israel into this.) 

> Christians tend to use the term crusades to
> symbolize war against "bad" (from the speaker's perspective) things, such
[...]
> Tim unfortunately plays right into this religious hatred with his article's
> subject, thereby demonstrating his religious intolerance.  So, Tim, please
> prove me wrong and tell us the rational (as opposed to prejudicial or
> hateful) reason you used the term "jihad" instead of "crusade" or some
> other term in the article title, would you please?

   Is this a loaded question or what? :-) First, before discussing my overall 
rationale, I would argue that it is quite hard to infer "religious 
intolerance" by the usage of one word in a subject of a title not discussing 
anything religious.

   Now, let me first bring in the Merriam-Webster definitions of both Jihad 
and Crusade:

* A crusade is a "a remedial enterprise undertaken with zeal and enthusiasm," 
when not referring to the historical event "The Crusades."

* A jihad is a "a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty
[or] a crusade for a principle or belief."
 
  Now, at least in the current understanding however, much as you note, Jihad 
does have more of a negative connotation, and is thus more appropriate for a 
negative headline than crusade. It is also a term close to memory for most 
people atm, which makes it fit better as well.

  Consider this: "SCO Declares Crusade against Linux" and "SCO Declares Jihad 
against Linux"... which gets the point across better? 

  Coming through again "SCO Declares a Remedial Enterprise Undertaken with 
Zeal Against Linux" or "SCO Declares a Crusade of Belief Against Linux"?

  But, back to my point. Just because Jihad had religious, perhaps even 
commendable, orgins, its popular usage is quickly forming based on the 
visable usage of it by groups such as al-Qaeda. As such, I am using the newly 
formed secular usage and not the older religious usage.

  Consider this: the term "born again" was a term of great spiritual 
significance to the Christian Church at least since the writing of the Gospel 
of John around 90 AD. However, since the 1970's Christians have been forced 
to find a new term, as born again in the United States now often refers to 
stuff like used cars, refurbished vacuums, etc.

  While most Christians aren't happy about this, certainly no one is going to 
say that someone "incorrectly" using that term is hateful of the Christian 
Church.

  Jihad is a vivid picture of a war at the moment, and more precisely a war(s) 
in which it would seem the one issuing the war is very convinced to the 
rightness of the battle. Further, most of those on the outside see the jihads 
negatively -- suicide bombings, innocent civilians killed, etc. Thus it's the 
term that fits. I would note, if the most vocal Muslims didn't use the term 
Jihad in the sense of physical, asymmetrical warfare, but rather as a 
personal inner struggle, that wouldn't be the case.

  Crusade wouldn't work. What do people think of when you say a crusade? I 
dunno... probably Campus Crusade for Christ or a Billy Graham Crusade. Stuff 
that most perceive either positively or neutrally. Except to middle 
easterners, the word crusade doesn't have a negative connotation UNLESS we 
specifically refer to THE Crusades. 

  This all comes down to the secularization of words. For instance, I was 
reading the other day about Christian ministers going to some kind of Study 
of Christ mecca. What a sec... when people think about that, it doesn't make 
much sense. Mecca, of course, being the holiest city of Islam. 

  For that matter, I can be trying to find a good pork farmer to buy sausage 
from and decide that one guy really seems to be kosher. That again, doesn't 
make much sense, but it has been said. 

  It's all a matter of taking the words in context for the popular meaning.

  See what I mean?

  -Tim

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy R. Butler       Universal Networks      www.uninet.info
==================== <[email protected]> ====================
| Christian Portal:      | Have you not learned great lessons |
|      www.faithtree.com | from those  who  braced themselves |
| GNU/Linux News:        | against  you   and   disputed  the |
|            www.ofb.biz | passage with you?   --Walt Whitman |


Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.