Massachusetts Bay, not Plymouth. Plymouth was founded by the Scrooby Congregation, a Brownist church of Nonconformist Congregationalist Calvinists.
Elaborate upon your point, please.
So sorry to have been an ignorant Orientalist. Do you mind pointing me towards a cite that can show me how “India is a perfect example.”?
Thanks for the correction. That’s awfully fine-grained denominationalizing! Doesn’t it fit, though, within a wider context of the Puritan movement?
Sure. Start with the books of professor Hugh Urban. Magia Sexualis: Sex, Magic, and Liberation in Modern Western Esotericism and/or Tantra: Sex, Secrecy, Politics and Power in the Study of Religion and/or The Power of Tantra: Religion, Sexuality and the Politics of South Asian Studies.
Purity is considered one of the foundational morals according to Jonathan Haidt, and from what I’ve read of other thinkers times of stress tend to drive people into more conservative mindsets which include a desire for purity, respect for authority, in group/out group dynamics. So a nation in decline or under attack from inside or outside forces may end up becoming more authoritarian and puritanical.
Now as to what is ‘pure’ it changes. It used to be that racial purity was valued, now we value a society purified of racial bigotry. The concept of ‘frankly my dear I don’t give a damn’ being controversial is hard to imagine now but someone saying faggot, nigger, kike, etc. will elicit a massive backlash likely worse than saying damn 80 years ago would. So I’d say we are a lot more puritanical with regards to concepts of tribalism than we ever were in the past (assuming a desire to transcend tribalism because tribalism is considered vulgar and foul is the same as a desire to avoid cursing, sexuality or racial impurity because those things were considered vulgar and foul in other ages).
Plus we are not that puritanical with sex. We just pretend to be. We dress teenage girls up as prostitutes and put them on TV.
If anything I’d assume we are deeply puritanical about things like drugs or tribalism, but not so much sexuality.
It fits within the context of the Calvinist/Reformist movement, but not really within the Puritan movement. The Puritan ideal was a hierarchical church of England imbued with state power and free from Pagan ideals and “Popish” notions, that would set up England as a holy nation that fufills God’s commandments and is a Christian Commonwealth; like Boston being Winthrop’s “city on a hill”; the ideal Christian city, as part of a greater ideal Christian nation.
The Brownist ideal was a congregationalist church of believers who choose to come together and form a church that will govern itself, apart from the corruption of the outside world. For the Brownists, the Church of England was inherently corrupted by “Popish” notions of hierarchy and power, and it was a true Christian’s duty to come out of the corrupt and evil Church of England, leaving those in it to hell, and come together as a brotherhood of true believers.
Missed my sarcasm there did you? Provide a cite for your assertion please. And no, go read this book does not count as one.
I ignored it, since it adds nothing of value to the discussion.
I’ll give you a few choice quotes from professor Urban, with my commentary:
So: In the Orientalist imagination, Tantra = sexual freedom.
However, actual Indian Tantrikas were…
So: The existence of Tantric practices was (and is) not a sign of a non-puritanical society.
Tantra existed within a strictly puritanical society, and only within it – as a component of it, not as a protest against it.
And:
Furthermore, as a quote from Krishnananda himself makes clear, even within this very small group within which Tantric sex was practiced, pleasure wasn’t the point:
In the light of all this, I repeat that the idea that non-Europeans were fun-loving, free-spirited, all-fucking “noble heathens” until the Europeans came along and “pushed their anti-pleasure ideology” and ruined the party with their Bibles and their Pope-approved missionary positions is nonsense, and I repeat that India is a perfect example of this. The existence of “Tantra” and “Kama Sutra” does not somehow equate a hedonistic, non-puritanical society – India’s puritanical ideas about sexual taboos etc. did not come from the outside world, and were not forced upon her under “long periods of Islamic and European rule”.
(If you’re genuinely interested in this sort of thing, you really should read those books, though.)
Not one of those cites seem to be relevant, and the inferences you draw from them can only qualify as flights of fancy. Tantric practices have only peripherally to do with sex anyway. Where’d you get the idea that I think Tantra is why India was less puritanical about sex before Islam and Christianity? Oh right, probably the same place you got the idea I was an ‘Orientalist’, because those are the people you blame for making the connection that “Tantra makes India a sexual and hedonistic society.”
India was nowhere near as puritanical a society as it is today. Open references to sexuality are definitely part of Indian culture before Islamic invasions in the 12th century. Any number of large, historically important temples across India have (very graphic) sexual depictions on their walls. The Kamasutra is not some sort of Tantric underground sex manual, but was the work of a philosopher setting out a view of life in one Indian body of work - the Kamashastra. There are other works in the tradition both before and after him. An entire, rather large, body of worship in India involves ritually honouring a sacred penis and vagina engaged in sexual intercourse. I know, I happen to have performed some of these rituals, back when I was a (very weakly)religious Hindu.
Were there ascetics in ancient Indian culture and those who renounced sex? Of course there were. Would they have gained ascendancy over their less puritanical parts? They may have. They may not have. All I said was, you have no way of knowing. Islamic and Christian invasions intervened.
Isolated rural parts of South and East India, where the British and Islamic influence was minimal, far from being more puritanical in their attitudes, are much less so. The north eastern states spring to mind. Manipur for instance, is one of the few Hindu majority states in India which faced neither Islamic invasions nor christian missionaries. Attitudes towards sex are famously different from the rest of India. To the extent that, very unfortunately, women from there are regarded as loose by the unwashed masses in the rest of India. Isolated South or central Indian villages? Go to one and see the sarees they wear. You will forever be disabused of the notion that it is modest attire.
If you’re genuinely interested in this sort of thing, you really should try visiting. I promise to take you to Khajuraho.
Thanks for a clear, concise explanation. It makes Puritanism appear disjunct from Congregationalism—which would pretty much dismantle the argument I posted above. Still, that intense enmity toward the least trace of Catholicism is shared by both, which appears to tie the two together, however loosely. All I know is that by the 18th century Boston was the biggest center of Congregationalism. I’m just intrigued by the story of how such strict, severe religionists evolved into the Unitarians. America’s experiments in religion have been like no other nation.
Oh right I forgot to mention, one of the best loved Hindu gods is known for how popular he was with the ladies, and the name of the woman that he is most frequently associated with, and loved best, he wasn’t ever married to?
Sure. But there are many “open references to sexuality” in the Bible as well – and yet both Jewish and Christian culture has often been quite puritanical.
That a culture’s literature and/or its sacred texts include “open references to sexuality” doesn’t preclude puritanical ideals and a puritanical society.
What I said above, pretty much. That a society’s religious practices include “honouring a sacred penis and vagina engaged in sexual intercourse” doesn’t mean that said society is hedonistic and/or non-puritanical. Like ancient Rome, old India had a great deal of sexual taboos – rituals like the one you describe doesn’t change that.
Oh, but I’m not talking about what could have happened. I’m talking about that India was a deeply puritanical society even before the Islamic and Christian invasions, full of strict sexual taboos.
Now that’s really interesting! Got a cite?
This, too, is really interesting. Cite?
Actually, if you can provide cites (preferably but not necessarily book-length) which show that 1) the culture in “Hindu majority states in India which faced neither Islamic invasions nor christian missionaries” such as Manipur is hedonistic and non-puritanical, and that 2) this hedonistic and non-puritanical culture was dominant throughout India up until the time of the invasions, when pressure from the outside world all but stamped it out, then you’ve won the argument. I am not being facetious – I’d be glad to be proven wrong here.
Because you can’t spell “Khajuraho” without “ho”! 
Right. But then, the fact that Lot fucked his daughters doesn’t mean incest is considered OK in Judeo-Christian culture.
I don’t know about you, but for me, and I suspect most people, if a society’s philosophical tradition has an entire branch devoted to sex and sexuality, and if their places of worship depict multiple people engaged in many sorts of sex, and a very large part of their religion involves ritual worship of sexual intercourse, I would already not consider them puritanical. If you would, we disagree on definitions. That can’t be helped. Also keep in mind that these were living aspects of the society. Some of the Khajuraho temples for instance, were constructed in the 12th century. It’s not like the temples were made 600 years before the time period I’m talking about.
As for your assertions that Christianity has equivalent depictions? Find me an open discussion of sexuality that is anywhere close to the Kamasutra, or that there are multiple places of worship in Christianity or Islam that depict people in flagrante delicto.
You have not given me a cite for this. You may think you have, but you haven’t. All you’ve said is that the aspect - Tantra - which makes “Orientalists” think India was some sort of continuous orgy, is not what they think it was. I was never labouring under that particular misapprehension.
I will keep an eye out. It’s living breathing knowledge. I have plenty of friends from the North-East and I’m interested in the culture, so I know it. I appreciate that on a message board this is not enough, so I’ll look, and respond.