tried to get around the Cana miracle by asserting that the wine was unfortified. But it doesn't hold up in light of the wedding steward's admonishment about keeping the best wine until last.

... certainly true.

Old habits -- especially mental ones -- are the hardest to break.

Unless of course they can attack Rand's objectivity.  At that point you can make an argument for self preservation at all costs.  Enjoyment is a temporary distraction. 

Puritanism is hard to break, and anything else seems like hedonism (to the puritan). 

Christians who turn Jesus into a tea-totaler will obviously have a hard time explaining the wedding at Cana. However, there is a great deal in St. Paul which would suggest that temperance is highly recommended. Being drunk is explicitly condemned in the Bible.

Christianity and the Bible are plastic -- but not infinitely so. Jesus was an advocate of poverty, sexual abstinence and communal property. He was a Platonic dualist and epistemological mystic. This much is just as hard to evade as the implications of Jesus's making of wine.

Toohey's puritanism comes in one of his key speeches (I'll bet it's in For the New Intellectual), and contrasts itself to Roark's love of life and egoism. Yes, the whole thrust of Rand's "philosophy for living on earth" should "correct" someone's imported puritanism.

Rand is far less plastic than the Bible.

Puritanism is atithetical to consumerism.  If it were in the water, the US would have a trade surplus. 

I mean: the bible can be used to justify a myriad of contradictory lifestyles and beliefs.  But using Jesus to justify sobriety?  I find it hard to believe that Calvin even read the new testament.  His most famous miracles were the creation of wine.  The contradiction just cannot be reconciled.

As for puritans that become Objectivists, if they can gloss over the whole Jesus/wine thing, it's pretty easy to gloss over Toohey's puritanism while rationalizing your behavior. 

I don't think it is very likely for an Objectivist to turn puritan by studying Objectivism.  Such a turn would also be easily corrected.

It's in the water. I get my water bottled from New Zealand, that's why I've maintained a healthy non-puritan (okay maybe not always healthy but DEFINATELY non-puritan) perspective.

Seriously though, there is something more puritanical about Americans in general, though not just with religious roots but a kind of "essentialism" (where luxury and its component of enjoyment for enjoyment's sake is frowned upon) built out of the "toughness" coming from having to forge a brand new country out of almost nothing. I see this essentialism like a tragic by-product of the frontier mentality, perhaps re-enforced by aspects of religious Puritanism.

I don't dispute that one bit. In fact, I think, I substantiated that.

Oh, dear! Don't give me another excuse to have some fun at the expense of the Red-coats, Marcus!

Though they were -- necessarily -- a bunch of 18th century English lawyers, America's Founders adeptly managed to swing our first crucial alliance with those age-old foes of the English -- the Frogs. The Marquis de Lafayette and some other like-minded chaps became American heroes, my friend, and without the support of the French Navy, the English probably would've have kept North America in its pocket. (The expense of aiding us also helped push France into revolution, and King Louis paid a dear price for it.)

Though common values and interests in the 20th and 21st Centuries have forged a uniquely strong bond between the US and the UK, let's not forget who helped promote the interests of liberty everywhere -- perhaps, without even knowing all that they were doing -- the absolutist kings of France!

So, vive la France!

(Okay, that one hurt me, too. )

...based on the US constitution arising out of a German, Italian, Spanish, Russian or French empire.

What sort of enlightenment would the US have had from the French?

Jacques Rousseau, Denis Diderot or Voltaire? Voltaire is considered an inspiration to the US only because he had the good fortune to come under the influence of the writings of John Locke when he fled to England during the reign of terror.

No, an enlightened US could only have arisen out of a British Empire.

Americans are well aware of their own great political and legal heritage from "the Mother Country." As a student headed for legal practice, I studied the evolution of the English constitution: the emergence of a uniform system of justice, the jury trial, and Parliament. From 1215 to 1688, the development of the unprecedented legal system in England was the necessary groundwork for the events of 1776.

If there had been no English Civil War and, then, no Glorious Revolution, there never would have been an American Revolution. It's that simple.

The American Constitution could only have been written by a bunch of 18th Century English lawyers.

Great credit must also go to thinkers like Hugo Grotius and John Locke -- for it was the contemporary concept of "rights" which proved the most radical and important contribution of all.

However, and I do hate to rub it in, America has remained far truer to that heritage of common law and cherished property rights and individual liberty than Britain has, I am afraid.

We also inherited our worst baggage from the British Empire, too, and, in a word, that means slavery. Our Founders abolished the importation of slaves in the Constitution, something England would only do for the rest of its empire decades later. But its economic hold in the South, later assisted by the new cotton technologies, meant that it would take a civil war to get rid of the institution of slavery.

In the same vein, Puritanism was part of our heritage from the Mother Country, wasn't it?

Not to point any fingers or anything...

Moreover, it was in chucking the Church of England and primogeniture and kings and titles of nobility -- and by harkening back to ancient Roman and Greek political and philosophical traditions -- that America even surpassed the great virtues "Mother" had inculcated. In so doing, we avoided many of the evils of the harsh Class System that continued into the 20th Century on the British Isles.

As for the Puritans, I would also note that they dominated only early New England. The mid-Atlantic colonies were largely commercial ventures populated by ordinary, greedy English, Huguenot and Dutch settlers. Georgia, like Australia, began with a bunch of criminals. States like South Carolina attracted even the gentry to immigrate. Later, the vast waves of Irish and Italian immigrants can hardly be called "puritans."

Check out any hard core religious operation in America and you will discover the descendants of Catholic Irish folks and former slaves and many a descendant of Anglicans.

Yes, the character of the American psychology has been disproportionately influenced by the Puritans -- they did come at the very inception -- but America is more complex than "puritanism." It is a jumbled mess of melding cultural influences.

I myself have ancestors who were English uptight Puritans, Irish alcoholic Catholics, some Scottish noble's bastard, Dutch entrepreneurs and native American semi-nomads, or so I am informed. (Not that those stereotypes should apply to anyone else, of course. )

And I am a typical sort of American "mut."

[edit.: Get this: some evangelical Christians -- in the 21st Century -- in America -- have embraced Benedictine monasticism! Is this the 16th Century -- or earlier -- rearing its ugly religious head on these shores?! (Thanks to Noodlefood for the headsup.)]

Yes, thanks to America being part of the Great British Empire - it did take part in the Enlightenment - and greatly benefited from it too.

However, getting back to the point about Europe (especially England) being more narrow minded and intolerant than American puritans. It's blatantly untrue of the English.

It is widely known that Oliver Cromwell's puritan English republic didn't last very long simply because the English couldn't wait to return to the good old royal days of gambling, drinking and whoring

A turn of events that incidentally caused many of Cromwell's disgruntled English puritans to flee from this English depravity and start over again in America.

Scott, please explain this one: "Objectivism is more effective in promoting a puritanical morality than Christianity."

Seems to me, those "puritanical" Objectivists are ignoring the egoistic nature of the philosophy and that the "puritanism" is a carry-over from something else...

If you think otherwise, please elucidate.

In The Fountianhead, Ellsworth Toohey's advocacy of puritanism ("Don't drink, don't smoke...") set me on the right path long ago -- but maybe others missed it.

What exactly do you mean?

I recall an informal gathering at Peikoff's home one evening when someone asked him if his martini was "anti-mind" or "immoral," to which he replied, "After the kind of day that I put in, it would be immoral for me not to have a drink right now."

"I am in college and thought that I understood Objectivism but now I'm confused. I was talking with a bunch of Objectivists who say that smoking is immoral because it is bad for your health, and drinking is immoral because it "fakes reality" by dulling your mind. Is that true? I don't smoke but I never thought that smoking made someone immoral."

Although I never plan to smoke, take drugs and only drink alcohol in small amounts, I disagree with this Puritan view of "self destruction" that is, in my opinion, akin to the anti-abortion crowd. There has to be a balance, in the Objectivist life (or anyone's life for that matter), between preserving your life as long as possible, but still being able to enjoy it. Life is still a conditional thing, and we still die, drinker or no-drinker. Although I would like to live as long as possible so long as I am in control, I don't want to do it by avoiding enjoying it.

"Socialism may be dead, but its corpse is still rotting up the place." -Ayn Rand

Marcus is right on the money.  Puritanism is hard to shake even for Objectivists.  I think that it is hard to reconcile the difference between Puritan morality and Objectivist morality.  Objectivism is more effective in promoting a puritanical morality than Christianity.  How ridiculous is it to worship a guy that turned water into wine so that a wedding celebration could continue, and believing at the same time you will go to hell if you drink wine yourself!  It is much more reasonable to grow up with a puritanical morality and embrace cold, unfeeling logic.  Besides restraint, a major part of Puritanism was holding your neighbors accountable to your beliefs.  In the early northern settlements it was common to have very narrow plots of land that your neighbor could see the entirety.  The idea was that you could never hide and would therefore always behave correctly. 

I'm just one American, but the connection between Puritanism and puritanical Objectivists is pretty obvious.  You can tell them pretty easily, they are the ones that don't drink and judge you for drinking.

America's Puritan roots are still very much with her today.

But America also participated in the Enlightenment, Marcus -- and the atmosphere of the era made its revolutionary legal and political system possible, and desirable, even in such a backwater as North America.

"We deplore the narrowness and intolerance of the puritans; but they were less narrow and intolerant than the English and most of the Europeans of that day."

The intelligentsia of Europe were very open-minded and fecund at that time.

Yes Suma, it seems silly but don't overestimate the standard of most state students.

It may be one where Peikoff wrote the question and answer, even if so (which I doubt), the example published is 'accessible' to the 'un-initiated'. A good start.

One of the regular posters here commented that I should watch my drinking – and it was a Friday night get-together for that very purpose after a tough week!

Good dry humour from Peikoff.

However, just remember that America is where many Puritans - considered too puritanical even for the starchy British -fled to start a new life. Those Puritans shaped the culture and attitude of the country, which is something difficult to shake no matter what ones philosophy.

Nah..I think it is something in the water. I have lived in the US for over 10 years now, and I have become a Puritan.

Seriously though, what a dumb question. That kid is in college and thought he understood Objectivism, and cannot figure this out for himself. What would he have done if Peikoff said "it is true", would he have thought "the Pope has spoken, maybe I'm not an Objectivist"...Jeez.

Puritanism's home: New England (a Christian assessment):

"Here the civil law laid its hand upon the citizen in his business and social relations; it regulated his religious affairs, it dictated his dress, and even invaded the home circle and directed his family relations. One law forbade the wearing of lace, another of 'slashed cloaths other than one slash in each sleeve and another in the back.' The length and width of a lady's sleeve was solemnly decided by law. It was a penal offense for a man to wear long hair, or to smoke in the street, or for a youth to court a maid without the consent of her parents. A man was not permitted to kiss his wife in public. Captain Kimble, returning from a three-years' ocean voyage, kissed his wife on his own doorstep and spent two hours in the stocks for his 'lewed and unseemly behavior.' ...

"But the most striking feature in the life of New England is found in its religion. The State was founded on religion, and religion was its life. The entire political, social, and industrial fabric was built on religion. Puritanism was painfully stern and somber; it was founded on the strictest, unmollified Calvinism; it breathed the air of legalism rather than of free grace, and received its inspiration from the Old Testament rather than the New.

"There was a gleam of truth in the charge of Mrs. Hutchinson that the Puritans lived under a covenant of works. This was because they had not yet fully grasped the whole truth of divine revelation. No further proof of the legalistic tendencies of Puritan worship is needed than a glance at their own laws. A man, for example, was fined, imprisoned, or whipped for non-attendance at church services. He was dealt with still more harshly if he spoke against religion or denied the divine origin of any book of the Bible.2 Laws were made that tended to force the conscience, to curb the freedom of the will, and to suppress the natural exuberance of youth -- laws that could not have been enacted and enforced by a people who comprehended the full meaning of Gospel liberty, or had caught that keynote of religious freedom sounded by the ancient prophet and resounded by St. Paul and Luther, 'The just shall live by faith.'

"Nevertheless there is no more admirable character in history than the New England Puritan of the seventeenth century. His unswerving devotion to duty, his unlimited courage based on the fear of God, his love of liberty and hatred of tyranny -- these are the qualities that have enthroned him in the memory of the American people. We deplore the narrowness and intolerance of the puritans; but they were less narrow and intolerant than the English and most of the Europeans of that day. They committed errors, but they were willing to confess them when they saw them. They banished Roger Williams as a disturber of the peace, not for his opinions; but they bore witness to his spotless character. They executed a few Quakers, but confessed their error by repealing their own law. They fell into the witchcraft delusion, which was prevalent throughout Christendom at the time; but they were first to see the dreadful blunder they had made and they were not too proud to publicly confess it. Judge Sewall made, before a large congregation, a confession of his error as only a hero could have done; and he begged the people to pray 'that God might not visit his sin upon him, his family, or upon the land.' Such was a trait of the Puritan character that leads us to forget his faults and to admire rather than censure him. ..."

... they'd be over it by now!

Must be that Religious Right Valliant's always banging on about.

However, just remember that America is where many Puritans - considered too puritanical even for the starchy British -fled to start a new life. Those Puritans shaped the culture and attitude of the country, which is something difficult to shake no matter what ones philosophy.

The opinion of a (black) sheepish and shy NZer