Skip to comments.Why Public Nudity Is Wrong (And why San Francisco, by the barest majority, is right to ban it)
Posted on 12/04/2012 7:32:46 AM PST by SeekAndFind
If you want to understand leftism and everyone needs to, because it has been the most dynamic religion of the past one hundred years one good place to start is with San Francisco.
Or, perhaps more precisely, with nudity.
Or, even more precisely, with public nudity.
Last month, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted by the barest (pun not intended) margin, 6 to 5, to ban public nudity. By public nudity, the law means only displaying ones genitals in public. San Francisco women are still free to walk around topless. But that is not unique to San Francisco. Years ago, the highest court in New York State ruled that since it sees no difference between a mans chest and a womans, women should be free to walk around topless, just as men do.
Now why is all this significant?
Leftism seeks to undo most of the values that are distinct to Judeo-Christian religion. The Left has always been anti-religious, and especially anti-Christian. Karl Marx understood that a vibrant leftism and a vibrant Christianity could not coexist. He was right.
Two of the many areas of conflict between Judeo-Christian values and leftism concern the separation between the holy and the profane and the separation between humans and animals.
The essence of the Hebrew Bible, transmitted by Christianity, is separation: between life and death, nature and God, good and evil, man and woman, and the holy and the profane.
The reasons to oppose public nudity emanate from this Judeo-Christian list of separations.
When human beings walk around with their genitals uncovered, they are behaving in a manner indistinguishable from that of animals. A major difference between humans and animals is clothing; clothing separates us from and in the biblical view, elevates us above the animal kingdom.
Seeing any animals genitals is normal. Anyone who demanded that animals genitals be covered would be regarded as a nut by the most religious Jew or Christian.
But one of our human tasks is to elevate ourselves above the animal. And covering our genitals is one important way to do that.
The world of the Left generally finds this animalhuman distinction unnecessary. For years now, I have been reading article after article in major liberal newspapers and magazines about how much more alike humans and animals are than we ever thought. The theme of these articles is how narrow the differences really are between humans and animals.
Public nudity certainly forwards that theme.
The second reason to oppose public nudity also comes from the list of separations: the concept of the holy, or sacred.
For the Left, little is sacred certainly little in the ways that Jewish and Christian civilization has usually understood the term.
That is why an artist achieved cult-like status in the left-wing cultural world with a depiction of a crucifix in a jar of his urine. The crucifix is sacred to hundreds of millions of people I will pee on it. Whatever Judeo-Christian convention holds sacred, true believing Leftists have sought to desacralize.
The San Francisco Examiner reported about one of the protesters at the San Francisco supervisors vote:
As he pulled his pants up, a nudist named Stardust said the legislation sent the wrong message. Its telling people they should be ashamed to be naked, and thats totally wrong, he said.
But to those who believe in Judeo-Christian values, telling people to be ashamed about being naked in public is not totally wrong. Its the whole point.
The first thing Adam and Eve discovered after eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was that they were naked. And the first emotion they ever experienced was shame over their nudity.
San Francisco and America and the West are going to have to choose whether Stardust or the Bible is right. By one vote San Francisco decided in favor of the Bible. But a judge, who may well have Stardusts values, is yet to rule.
And its hard to see why a liberal judge would not rule the law unconstitutional. Because the fact is that there is no secular reason to ban public nudity.
Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His most recent book is Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph. He is the founder of PragerUniversity
Equality is sacred because lots of evil people then get to play god.
uhhgh...now I’m seeing someone purveying little undies for dog...
The ONLY good thing that came out of the “Fall of Man” in the Garden of Eden is mankind learned to cover up.
Serious, can you imagine if we lived in a world where Michael Moore or Rosie O’Donnell, walked around nude?
Which is why a few of us realize that we need a Constitutional fix.
The Constitution should be explicitly based on the Bible, making America explicitly, legally a Christian nation.
In it’s present state it has glaring ambiguities and is not explicitly Christian, and the results are all around us.
I’d have to assume that in San Francisco, not every nude person’s body is clean and smelling fresh all day and for that reason, public nudity should be banned.
1st Amendment. Re-read it.
As for public nudity... Everyone is naked under their clothes. Leave it up to each community and vote with your dollars.
Personally, I wouldn't visit such places. Nothing there I want to see.
They should invite these people to come and publicly walk nude in Anchorage, between the months of December and February...
They can have a parade if they want :)
I want to vacation in the world where Jessica Biel and Angie Everheart are walking around nude.
That's just me though... Not sure my Wife would agree.
RE: Nothing there I want to see.
Not even if the Victoria’s Secret ladies decide to go on parade? :)
I wanted the first few sentences to tell me why public nudity is wrong. No such luck. Finally the author says it’s because it distinguishes us from animals who wear no clothes, and therefore seeing an animal’s genitals is normal and seeing ours is not. Hey - I seldom see animials’ genitals. They are mostly hidden by fur and their location between the legs.
I don’t believe in public nudity but the article was a waste of my time. Perhaps my expectations were too high.
Can the highest court in New York state really see no difference between a man’s chest and a woman’s? I certainly can, and I ain’t no damned judge!
Of course, it is, at times, rather entertaining to judge wimmins’ chests ....
Besides, I'd rather just let my Wife shop at Vicky's Secret... ;-)
And I was hoping that the author would elaborate on his equating, in the first paragraph: human genitals, men's chests, and women's chests; and maybe indicate whether I (as a man) am wrong to go about topless when performing yardwork on hot summer days, but no luck!
I'm not sure, but I get the impression that he thinks that's wrong, too. (Maybe I could get a "National Geographic Exemption"?)
Reading this article, the song “Bounce Your Boobies” by Rusty Warren popped into my head :)
It was the Fall that makes Michael and Rosie look like they do. If we had not Fallen, we’d all look much better.
True, but even if someone looked great, there would still be problems. Some people will sometimes have errr racing streaks in their underpants because of hygiene habits.
Would you want them to come butt naked and have a seat at your restaurant?
The Bible does not force anything but the moral law on unbelievers.
It works the same way ancient Israel was commanded to treat “strangers”.
Our laws against murder, theft, etc., are based on the Old Testament moral law. Pre-American European law - the idea of what’s right and what’s wrong - was based on the Bible. This is why sodomy laws were called sodomy laws, because that’s the word the King James Bible uses. The founders did NOT discuss what the moral law of America would be, i.e., should we make a crime and what we should not make a crime from a secular standpoint. In that day in Europe and America the Bible was the generally accepted root source for understanding what is right and wrong.
The guys who wrote the Constitution corporately came up with this open-ended idea on religion which only worked until the selection of elected leaders started to go into the toilet, which was very early on.
1st Amendment is too vague and allows Christianity to be attacked. So it is being attacked.
Post-WWII we started to pick and choose to legalize some acts, such as sodomy, and murder of unborn children.
Just because a majority wants to make something legal, that does not nullify the effect of the moral law given in God’s Law Word the Bible.
There is no middle ground on religion even though secular humanists maintain that there is. This is being demonstrated now as the secular humanist government turns on Christianity - and Jews who are practicing - in favor of what self-serving politicians see as an up-and-coming group, islam. A nation is either Christian or it’s not. Jewish or it’s not. Muslim or it’s not. Secular humanist or it’s not. If it doesn’t say what it bases it’s law on, it’s secular humanist; it bases it on what the power struggles between people result in. Dems in charge, abortion is legal. Repubs in charge, abortion frowned upon. Believers in charge, abortion illegal.
This is why, IMHO, the real battle is for hearts and minds of the population.
IMHO, it’s the truth that sets us free, and lying to ourselves that sins of the flesh and other sins are acceptable does not set us free, it makes us a slave to those sins.
The Bible tells us that civil government has “the power of the sword” to restrain evil. If it doesn’t use it righteously evil is not restrained.
From the “Knockers Up” album? I recall covertly listening with several friends to that album that belonged to a friends dad when I was about 14.
I despair over the influence the left has had and will continue to have on civilization. Then I read statements such as yours and realize that some on the right would agree with you. And I despair even more.
I’d try not to judge. I’d either admire or ignore. And truth be told, I’d take a pretty good look at almost all female chests.
Wearing clothes goes along with individual identity, for human’s. True individuality is lost in a sea of naked humans.
The right occasions for being O.K. to be naked in front of others is contextual, and being out in the public square is not one of them, because the first order of being O.K. is that that O.K. is by mutual consent - the parties mutually agree the context is O.K. for it.
Such mutual consent is not possible in the public square, which makes the nudity of those who drop their clothes in the public square NOT an act of liberation but an assualt. They cannot and therefor have not sought mutual consent from everyone who is or will be in the public square; even a law that grants an O.K. cannot go out and obtain mutual consent from whomever could be in the public square.
Therefor, even a law or regulation permitting it is still an assault on the Liberty of everyone else - the natural Liberty that says, and requires, we are naked and in the company of others who are naked only by mutual consent.
Mutual consent on human nudity is mandatory to Liberty because it permits, and requires, mutual human nakedness only when we mutually agree the context permits it.
There are only a few times when a majoritarian view, as opposed to an individual view, makes consent implicit when it cannot be asked for explicitly; such as open shower areas in public health, sports, bathing (in Asia) facilities, where consent is implicit when we know the nature of the public changing, showering, bathing facilities there. We agree to the conditions by agreeing to go there. When we understand the conditions it is left to our consent to go along with them or not.
But, such facilities are not the public square. They are an exception and a distinction - a distinct context - from the public square.
Nudity in PUBLIC is an assualt, not an act of liberation.
We have a Moslem President, so...
As long as we agree, legally, that Mormons are not Christians.
Victorias Secret ladies
Please. I am a lady; those women are not ladies.
It’s just the Bible, nothing to despair about.
“uhhgh...now Im seeing someone purveying little undies for dog...”
Maybe undies wouldn’t be a bad idea for a Great Dane! LOL
I find it hard to believe anyone much cares what happens in or to San Francisco; that boat of degeneracy left port 30 years ago.
Wait... public nudism offends Christians but it makes Muslims apoplectic! They can’t stand the sight of a female ANKLE or a head of hair!With any luck this can be used to drive all Muslims from the area( those whose brains don’t explode first)! Genetalia induced strokes! The rest of us can deal with nausea and offense if all it takes is naked people to drive Muslims from our midst.
Howabout Helen Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Janet Napolitano, Hillary Clinton and a bevy of other Ugly Demorats! YUK!
But I would sure Love to see Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin naked! just to name a few Conservatives!
I guess those options are reserved for Hell and Heaven.
public nudity is all about grooming and desensitizing children for the swinger lifestyle at as young an age as possible. If a nudist resort announced they were going to go 18+ only, the swingers would revolt.
This article is silly...
Any one who thinks public nudity should be OK should be required to sit down on a bus seat after a naked fat guy gets up.
We know where the libertarians are on this.
While I am sympathetic to your statement it needs some explanation and nuance. To simply create a category called moral law and to separate it from other laws of God is to infer that the other laws are immoral or amoral and is to accuse God of being capricious.
God requires His subjects, that is His creation to obey His laws. He has divided human society into institutions that He created and ordained. Those institutions are the family, the civil magistrate and the church. None of the institutions are subordinate to the other, they have interaction and responsibilities, and some limited intersection with the others in their respective service of God, but none is to be master of the other, they all report directly to God. God has given His law in written form (the Bible) as a moral imperative and as a societal blueprint.
Some of the laws are in the form of thou shalt not and honor your father and mother, but much of God's law is given in case law. Sometimes principles are given from which applications are derived and sometimes applications are given from which the principles must be discovered. If an honest exegete believes a set of laws to be applications of a greater principle then it may be honestly stated that while the principle stands the applications change because the circumstances change.
Two examples to illustrate. Deut 22:8 requires that a barrier be put around the edge of a roof so that no one is likely to fall off the roof and be killed or injured. We no longer entertain guests on flat roofs as was customary in the culture of the Old Testament so the law would seem to be no longer applicable; however the law is an application of a greater principle to take prudent measures to protect life and limb thus the principle stands but applications are different. Perhaps we might lawfully (according to the principle of Deut 22:8) require a fence around a swimming pool or an open trench. Another law (Lev 12:2)requiring that a women who is to be treated as unclean for seven days after the birth of a male child and if a female two weeks is a much more difficult question. It appears to many as a law that we might place under the heading of separation laws, that is customs for the covenant people of God to demonstrate their separation from others and into grace. New Testament thinkers are conflicted on these laws as to their current status and application. I personally believe that in the New Testament even dietary laws which were also of the separation type have changed for the new reality of the risen Christ and the blessing to all nations, other separation laws have likewise been changed to reflect the redemption accomplished in Christ.
There can be no conflict in the mind of a Christian that God's laws are law and that His judgements will stand even when they are in conflict with USSC. In other words the first commandment trumps the first amendment. BUT it is not entirely clear if the civil magistrate is to enforce the first commandment and if so what remedy is has been given. Psalm 2 instructs civic leaders to fear God and obey His laws, Jehoshaphat was commended for removing idols and purging homosexuals, Gideon broke the alter of Baal and was made a judge, Jeroboam was condemned for idolatry that he made Israel to sin, and many other examples demonstrate that the general welfare is served when the nation is lead by men who fear God and that has not turned away form the worship of the true and living God and ruler of creation.
Yet, the law of God not only institutes the civil magistrate it also limits it and here is where theologians of all stripes disagree. Back to the matter of public nudity. I am unaware of a Biblical law given to the magistrates either by principle or application that outlaws public nudity. But the general welfare of a people is best served when they do cover up. This can be well reasoned and exhaustively demonstrated from natural law even if revealed law provides no specific application. So even if this were a "Christan" nation I do not think that automatically makes public nudity a moral crime, but neither does it forbid the use of natural law to order society for the general welfare as long as the jurisdictional limits given by God are respected.
As for the Founders, they did in fact expound on the limits of government.
A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities. - Thomas Jefferson.
So no... You cannot incorporate Leviticus into the USC. Sorry.
Freedom. How does it work again? We seem to have forgotten.
Libertinians are all about license and not liberty
they fail to see the difference
liberty requires responsibility
We just think that the perverts in government are not the place to look for morality.
History is on our side.
There are many historical documents that prove public nudity was practice and encouraged by the founding fathers.
This thread and many others demonstrate why we lose elections. Libertarians might look good on physical issues but they will not hold a society together.
We ran a candidate on tax cuts, how did that work out?
Woe unto them that call evil, good.
Actually, no. They aren't. That is why we have the mess we are in.
The Bible tells us that it is perfect counsel revealed by God. The problem is not with the Bible, then, only with men.
But which of you is right about how to apply God's word? The Catholics? The Baptists? The Quakers? Lutherans? Until y'all figure that out, how in the heck do you think you'd be able to codify that into a National charter? Especially once you put "fallen beings" in charge of that much power...
Who decided the Bible was tyranny and when did this happen ?
It isn't. Until you try and make a government out of it. Then you get what happened for all those Centuries in Europe with the various Monarchies.
No thanks. We don't need to do that again.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
Prager is completely correct in every point. Any civilization worthy of the adjective "civilized" prohibits public nudity. And leftism is by definition humanist, secularist and atheist, even if some pose as believers in God. And what is the basic tenet of atheism? Not just that God does not exist, and therefore there are no moral absolutes, nor any intrinsic and transcendent meaning and purpose to life; but humans have no soul, we are just clumps of flesh and consciousness is just an accident created by chemical processes. And leftists/humanists/secularists will never rest until they have taken God and moral absolutes out of every sphere of life; not just public. Their goal is to destroy even private expression of belief in God.
“Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests
of society require the observation of those moral precepts ... in
which all religions agree.” —Thomas Jefferson
Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts only in which all religions agree (for all forbid us to steal, murder, plunder, or bear false witness), and that we should not intermeddle with the particular dogmas in which all religions differ, and which are totally unconnected with morality. Thomas Jefferson. Letter to J. Fishback, 1809.
Which still supports my point. Codifying ONE sects dogma as National law is a bad idea. History is littered with Nations that have tried.
He also, since he was an englightened gentleman, reduced the penalty in the state of Virginia from execution to merely castration and banishment, IIRC.
The learned men of his day never envisioned that the USA would degrade to barbaric perversion and that it would be the cultural norm, nor that people would use his words as justification for tolerating (what to speak of promoting or “celebrating”) public nudity, sodomy, slutdom and the rest. They assumed that the basic moral standards would be understood and continue to be the cultural standards.
Oh, and all monotheist religions (as well as some that are not, or are not generally considered monotheist religions) share the same moral precepts).
If you think Jefferson would high five the Libertarian Platform you’re out of your mind.
I HAVE To preview. Sorry, my first comment above should read:
He also, since he was an englightened gentleman, reduced the penalty for sodomy in the state of Virginia from execution to merely castration and banishment, IIRC.