Gut Rumbles

February 22, 2006

"snivelling puritans"

I like that term. "Snivelling puritans." It's the perfect description of the nanny-state nabobs who run around with puckered assholes and trembling knees, worried to death that somebody somewhere might be doing something "dangerous." Buncha pricks. THEY are more dangerous than the alleged risks they seek to protect people from.

Read this and mark these words:

The problem is that our present masters don't understand the limits of government. The nanny state quickly descends into the police state.

Think about that the next time an anti-something law is trumpeted by the nannies and applauded by the sheeple. Do you really want a bunch of snivelling puritans telling you what you can and cannot do?

I don't.


Want to read the latest BS fron the Wacky Education system? I'm not even going to try to explain it, just another feel-good college class.


Posted by: RickR on February 22, 2006 04:46 PM

Oh, hell yeah.

Please, oh, please save me from myself.

Posted by: Billy on February 22, 2006 05:09 PM

The irony of it is that the same people who don't trust the government want to give the government more and more power over our daily lives. The social acitivists think they will dodge the bullet, but it's idiocy to think that, once handing the governing classes the tools to suppress the liberties of those they disapprove, the rulers will stop there.

Posted by: Brett on February 22, 2006 05:49 PM

I, personnally, do not need anyone to advise me how to survive. I do not want a gov't telling me how to survive. I have lived and learned those things.

I would like people to understand this......... every time a law is made, a freedom is lost.
Very simple concept, I think.

Having said that, I think we should help the handicapped and the elderly, if they need it.

And I also think that discussion is the light for the advancement of humanity. ................... And if that don't work..................I'll join the fight.

When you look for help from someone or somewhere, that has no idea, where you are or who you are, you will be disappointed.

Posted by: ken on February 22, 2006 07:25 PM

Hey don't give the Puritans a bad name, they weren't anywhere near as bad as some of the nanny's of today. The Puritans at least weren't anti-wine and beer.

Posted by: Buddy on February 22, 2006 08:50 PM

Buddy, don't confuse the Puritans with the Pilgrims. The Puritans beheaded King Whatsisname and burned witches.

It was the pilgrims on the Mayflower who had to go ashore to brew beer. Different bunch altogether.

Posted by: McGehee on February 23, 2006 10:48 AM

Either way, the Puritans enjoyed beer and wine in moderation (and often it seems in 'excess' by today's standards) and water was considered 'unhealthy'. Beer was the primary 'drink of the day' more or less. "Puritan" refers to two distinct groups: "separating" Puritans, such as the Plymouth colonists, who believed that the Church of England was corrupt and that true Christians must separate themselves from it; and non-separating Puritans, such as the colonists who settled the Massachusetts Bay Colony, who believed in reform but not separation.

Both the Pilgrims and Puritans were highly religious people, the Pilgrims wanted separation from the English church and England because of the corruption they saw, and the "Puritans" wanted to work within the establishment of the church and state to change it. Honestly as much as revisionist history wants to separate the two, there really isn’t a great deal separation, unless you specifically speak about the Mayflower Pilgrims of 1620 (which were puritans, to some extent, but more 'Separatist') or the Massachusetts 'Puritans' 10 years later. Those identified as 'Pilgrims' were more 'independent' but often there was some overlap there because they largely came from the same group of people: disaffected expatriates from the church of England (although it is noted that the Mayflower Pilgrims had lived in Holland for a period before coming to America).

Modern history wants to disparage the ‘Puritans’ and smear the whole group for the misdeeds of part of the group. Personally I'd compare the witch trial ‘puritans’ to the 'Westboro God Hates Fag Baptists'. Most believe that it was the ‘Christians’ of the Puritan colony who got together one day and decided to hang them some witches. That is simply not true. I’d argue they weren’t ‘Christians’ at all, myself. In fact, the Salem witchcraft trials were stopped by a Puritan pastor from Beverly, Massachusetts who determined that none of the evidence of so-called ‘witchery’ met any standards of evidence at all. Those people were just as much Christian ‘Puritans’ as the Westboro folks are real Christian ‘Baptists’.. i.e. not at all (and that goes for a lot of other so called ‘Baptists’ too imo)

As a biblical student of the Puritan Church fathers such as Jonathan Edwards, I can tell you as fact they were not anti-alcohol, in moderation, en mass. Edwards was very much of the Personal Choice’ persuasion as were most of the 'Puritans'. The whole anti-alcohol crap is a relatively modern invention -- started around 1890, and reached it's height in around 1920, well after the heyday of the Puritans.

Posted by: Buddy on February 24, 2006 10:55 AM
Post a comment

*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.