In our U.S. History I course today we talked about the strict moral code the Puritans embraced. One of the students argued that they “pushed their views on others.” It was argued in class that the antithesis of Puritan sanctimony is Britney Spears who, it has been argued, is “a symbol of everything that’s wrong with American society.” Were the Puritans correct in attempting to adhere to this code or is the Britney Spears philosophy of “live and let live” more worthy of our admiration?
The Independent Thinkers
A page for thinking people who tirelessly challenge their own assumptions and let neither conventionality nor agenda nor political party obstruct the relentless pursuit of truth
- Home
- Books of Note
- Election 2008
- Films of Note
- Groundbreakers
- In the News
- Music
- Video Presentations and Clips
Google US. News- Lou Dobbs resigns from CNN - Los Angeles Times
- A Fort Hood trial likely will be slow to unfold - Philadelphia Inquirer
- On Veterans Day, members of commission are sworn in - Baltimore Sun
- Scoring system for school aid - Washington Post
- Oregon woman killed by husband filed for divorce - The Associated Press
September 11, 2007 at 9:15 pm |
As Britney would say, “Listen up, y’all.” Please don’t make me choose between Britney Spears, and her ex K-Fed, for the parent of the year award. And, that exactly is my point.
The Puritans had it going on with respect to taking care of the family unit. I don’t have the feeling that Britney and K-Fed’s kids are well served by having self-absorbed parents.
Yes, Puritan society probably felt a restrictive to its members, but it provided the maximum security to a fledgling community. Seems like a reasonable price to pay to avoid another Roanoke from happening.
September 12, 2007 at 12:55 am |
I spent a few years as a catechist (religion teacher) to 8th graders, topic Morality. We studied the 10 Commandments and how they could be applied to everything we face today. In the beginning of the course all the kids would tell me how restrictive it was to have to live with so many rules; don’t do this, don’t touch that, etc… By the end of the course they usually realized that because of those rules, we not only know what the “can’t dos” are, we know exactly what freedoms we have.
No society can wholly embrace a “live and let live” philosophy without jeopardizing the safety, security, and prosperity of its future generations. Maybe we’re seeing that now? This generation of children is projected to have lower incomes and shorter lifespans than their parents. They are more obese, eat fewer nutritious and natural foods, get less exercise, and read fewer books. They have more electronic “potential” than any prior generation, yet they are backsliding on so many scales. This is progress? A few more rounds of Me First and we’ll be able to register for third-world status.
My very convoluted way of agreeing with Linda