[Janice D. Soderling]

Thank you, Erik for your post. I wrote a reply that disappeared so I'll try to briefly recap.

As in all communication, context is everything. A problem with online discussions is that it is like ad lib conversation, only we cannot see each other's face. If I were writing for "real" publication I would let my thoughts set at least overnight and read through many times, each time making major or minor adjustments.

So it well may be that I did not express my point as well as I thought I did. I wanted to simply say that one should strive in any discussion to consider the topic from the other fellow's viewpoint.

Yes, it is true that one often, nowadays, hears "crusade" coming from the jihadist faction and the bellicose Western loudmouths, but that was not the case in 2001. It was then used as a euphemism for "making a special effort", and outside the ranks of the evangelicals was understood in the dictionary sense: "any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea, cause, etc.: a crusade against child abuse."

When introduced into the public discourse by political and religious leaders following the destruction of the twin towers, the word acquired a political and contemporary shift in meaning. I may remember incorrectly, but I believe Mr. Bush used the word a number of times in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

In the same way, or so I believe, the singing of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" by large crowds that included political and religious leaders left differing impressions within various audiences.

I was in the Dominican Republic walking along the beach listening to a transistor radio when the music was interrupted by an announcement. I thought: They can't possibly be saying what I think I am hearing. (The announcement was, of course, in Spanish.) Because who could have dreamed such a nightmare scenario could happen. But when I got back to where I was staying the desk clerk asked at once, without the usual polite preliminaries, if I had heard the news.

I spend the next few days glued to the television in a little open air shack, mostly alone but not always. The interest in a news event is usually determined whether or not it has an impact on us. When someone else joined me they would look for a while, express disbelief and sympathy for the New Yorkers and then go on their way. But I was totally mesmerized, because it was about me. Probably the positions would have been reversed if it has been about a plane flying into the Vatican; I write that with no disrespect for the life of the Pope or the religion.

Another incident is etched on my mind. I was in Cambridge, in England, when another war or major war incident was started or ongoing. I don't remember which, there have been so many, shades of George Orwell. Anyway, I was staying at a hostel where, as all hostellers know, the atmosphere is international. The television room was packed for the evening news. It would not be risky to bet that a good number of people in the room were Muslim. A young American sat on the floor right in front of the television muttering, and then burst out, "Bomb them back to the stone age." He looked around but no response was forthcoming. So he said it again, in a louder voice. Perhaps he thought that, being in England, he was among like-minded. He said it a third time at the end of the newscast and still got no response so he lumbered out of the room.

I hope you will forgive me for using some personal experiences which do not, in fact, prove anything, but I hope will illustrate my point that each listener filters though his own subjective filter when he hears words, or songs, or sees symbols.

***

Apologies for the oversized typeface. It wasn't intended and I've corrected it now. I hope I didn't turn it into teeny-tiny.