July 03, 2007

The New Puritans

It's been said that Puritans are people who constantly obsess over the fact that someone, somewhere, might be having a good time.

The old Puritans were religious fundamentalists who objected to drink, dancing, celebrating, bowling, gambling, or pretty much anything that was fun. They worried that such things were the road to Hell.

Modern Puritans are leftist atheists. Not being concerned about souls (since they don't believe in such things) their concern is health and well-being -- of people's bodies, and of the body of the holy mother Gaia. These days it seems that if there's anything you enjoy doing, you can find someone who says that it's bad for you. The top excuse is that it causes cancer.

Here in the US, tomorrow is July 4, Independence Day. Traditionally it's a day for garden parties, and a lot of meat is going to get grilled over charcoal tomorrow. People will enjoy themselves. Oh, no!

The shrieks of despair from the new Puritans rise up: barbecued meat contains carcinogens! Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons! Heterocyclic Amines!

Of course, it's bunk. So pile up that charcoal, release lots of greenhouse gases, char the outside of that meat good, and have yourselves a hell of a time!

(It's fortunate that no one has figured out a way to blame anime DVDs for cancer. Yet.)

Posted by: Steven Den Beste in Engineer's Disease at 02:54 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Don't forget the baby-killing fireworks.

Posted by: Author at July 03, 2007 03:26 PM (9imyF)

2 I'd be more worried about the fireworks, honestly.  Or more accurately, I'd be worried about stupid teenagers attempting to remove themselves from the gene pool.   But then, thats what teenagers do.

That said, *technically* I think the stuff grilling puts off theoretically adds to cancer rate.  OTOH, compared with other cooking methods, grilling melts off a lot of fat. . . which means its a net positive anyway.  Of course, try getting a health-fascist to understand "countervailing effects" or such. . .

Posted by: metaphysician at July 03, 2007 06:51 PM (lXszF)

3 Well, the fireworks are a big no-no down here in the Arizona tinder-box, but it sounds like I'm going to spend the day helping my dad restore his 64 Ford Falcon. It was the Ford Taurus of its day, but we're muscling it up into a gas-guzzling monster. We have to get it ready for the exhaust (classic restoration means no catalytic converter!! suck it greenies!!) to be installed on Thursday. I'm sure meats and fire will also be mixed at some point.

Posted by: Will at July 03, 2007 08:55 PM (olS40)

4 I predict that many people will die tomorrow from DHMO poisoning.

When will we ever learn?

Posted by: Big D at July 03, 2007 09:22 PM (JJ4vV)

5 OLD joke.

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at July 03, 2007 10:41 PM (+rSRq)

6 There was a great article in our local left-leaning rag newspaper this morning about the banning of fireworks:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/03/DDG6TQOQE41.DTL

Posted by: madmike at July 03, 2007 10:49 PM (BWBM2)

7 A Very Good Sign, IMHO: on the news they gave instructions on how to safely use fireworks, even the "go up in the air and explode" kind.

Illinois allows the "safe and sane" kind but not the FUN kind. Thanks to a nice loophole in Indiana's laws--I live 6 miles from the border--although people can't USE fireworks, they can SELL all kinds there as long as the customers promise to take them out of state within five days.

But I'm going to the Philippines on Friday, so I'm not buying any fireworks this year. And I'm working tonight, too. *sigh* Maybe I'll light a sparkler before I go to work.

Posted by: Ed Hering at July 04, 2007 04:50 AM (Yz38/)

8

Ed: Would taking them out of state within 5 days include 'by ballistic arc?'

At least this year the fireworks won't set the entire state of Texas on fire! Biblical-flood level rains are good for that, at least.

Posted by: Intrope at July 04, 2007 06:54 AM (AYZY8)

9 Bless you, I had totally forgotten about the meat I had been keeping in the freezer. Then your article fired up some neurons in the "Steak!" portion of my brain. Defrosting it now.


Happy 4th everyone!

Posted by: ErikZ at July 04, 2007 08:40 AM (eFIpU)

10 Only thing that makes charcoling taste better is if you shot it yourself earlier that morning.  Ted Nugent style.

Posted by: jace at July 04, 2007 12:24 PM (f7ZUT)

11 This just goes to show that not believing in G-d or souls does not necessarily make one a more rational person.

Either way, I am wondering whether an obsessive love for "Gaya" constitutes belief in a god (meaning they are not atheists) or idolatry (a practice which I think has real-world disadvantages in a most technical sense).


Posted by: Andrew Brehm at July 05, 2007 04:38 AM (qjQ64)

12 As far as the modern environmental movement goes?  More the latter than the former, unfortunately.  Intrinsic in the difference between paganism and idolatry is whether you really worshipping the works of man, rather than something external and greater than him.

Given that the undertone of most environmental catastrophism is the assumption that man is *capable* of destroying the world, that places man in the superior position of their beliefs.  Hence, its really a form of worship to man's power, and idolatry.

By comparison, a religious ( and rather more rational ) Gaian would emphasize the need to be good to environment, or else *it* will destroy *us*.  Which is a far more legitimate concern, as far as environmental damage goes.

Posted by: metaphysician at July 05, 2007 05:06 AM (lXszF)

13

There are many ironic/hypocritical things about modern day atheists.  In my opinion, the biggest is atheist’s contempt of religion citing all the barbarities that religions have inflicted on mankind throughout history.  Of course it escapes them that during the past century atheists have killed off more people than all said religions.

Posted by: Homerlicous at July 05, 2007 05:48 AM (xkB2C)

14 No, I disagree.  The biggest irony is how your standard Marxist-materialist condemns religion with one hand, and then practices all the behaviors that he condemns with the other.

If contemporary religious reforms tend to consist of removing the cult from the spirituality, communism takes the opposite tack of removing the spirituality from the cult.  Since the problems arise from the cult, not the spirituality. . .

Posted by: metaphysician at July 05, 2007 07:30 AM (euFqi)

15 You guys are getting entirely too serious here. Thread closed.

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at July 05, 2007 12:50 PM (+rSRq)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Enclose all spoilers in spoiler tags:
      [spoiler]your spoiler here[/spoiler]
Spoilers which are not properly tagged will be ruthlessly deleted on sight.
Also, I hate unsolicited suggestions and advice. (Even when you think you're being funny.)

At Chizumatic, we take pride in being incomplete, incorrect, inconsistent, and unfair. We do all of them deliberately.

How to put links in your comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
13kb generated in CPU 0.01, elapsed 0.0136 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0065 seconds, 32 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.