Posted on 12/04/2012 7:32:46 AM PST by SeekAndFind
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.
Victoria’s Secret ladies
***
Please. I am a lady; those women are not ladies.
It’s just the Bible, nothing to despair about.
“uhhgh...now I’m 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
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.