Posted on 01/18/2011 12:32:52 PM PST by Cronos
A top official for the Russian Orthodox Church on Tuesday proposed creating an “all-Russian dress code,” lashing out at women who leave the house “painted like a clown” and “confuse the street with striptease.”.....
He argued that clothing is not a private business, and that he hoped that Russia would soon be a place where scantily-dressed women or men in track suits would not be admitted into public venues.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“What moral beliefs is he allowed to want reflected in the civil code, and what moral beliefs are excluded?”
An example would be church attendance, or maybe fasting for lent, or maybe women working outside the home. He might have sincere and theologically correct positions on those issues,,, but i believe he would be morally wrong to try to codify them into civil law. Thats not for him to IMPOSE on those outside his flock.
OTOH, When there is a violation of a persons individual rights, such as murder or theft, we write a law.
Your only defense is to become a theocrat or collectivist. That church should rule temporally, or that the collective is the most important unit of rights. (the same argument the anti-gun crowd uses to attack the 2nd amendment)
‘OTOH, When there is a violation of a persons individual rights, such as murder or theft, we write a law.”
But then we must decide what a person’s individual rights are.
Do I have the right to be in the public square without being literally forced to look at naked people?
I say I do.
“Athiest and saved both agree that they dont want to be murdered or be the victim of theft.”
I disagree.
There are many atheists and others, some may actually claim to be saved, who actually kill and steal, so, there are truly plenty of people who would not mind if murder and/or theft were legal or unpunished.
I don’t think I have a trite argument. My argument is: you can’t arbitrarily decide what religious beliefs can be codified into law, and what can’t.
Because your arbitrary decision are different than mine are different from Ted Bundy are different from the imam are different from Charles Manson are different from my grandma.
I could certainly support a law against cross dressing. I am sure a good majority if not a plurality of Americans would support it. Is it majority rule? Or, if not, what then is our standard?
Well it’s still legal for women to go topless in NY state which I guarantee would give the good father apoplexy
State parks, anyway.
“Some communities such as New York State, and the province of Ontario, Canada, have made it legal for women to go topless. Though in New York State it is only legal in state parks and is celebrated yearly by the Buffalo Six. Women in both areas have faced legal battles to obtain those rights, though few take advantage of them.”
“There are many atheists and others, some may actually claim to be saved, who actually kill and steal, so, there are truly plenty of people who would not mind if murder and/or theft were legal or unpunished.”
You miss the point entirely. Homicide is illegal because of the people who do not want ***their*** right to life violated via murder, by others, NOT because everybody agrees that you shouldn’t murder.
YOUR point that there are some people who would love to steal and murder, is why we have a law. To protect the people who want to be protected from them.
You certainly can arbitrarily do it. The answer is this,, we do not codify religious belief into law. For example, you do not outlaw eating meat of friday, etc. Law is centered around the individual and their god given rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Rights involve what you are free to do without harming others. A miniskirt harms nobody.
Ok, then we will disagree. Just like the left does, this man and you think every “good idea” should be a law. A progessive wants me to have a spaghetti light bulb, and not to drive an SUV. And this guy wants the women to be required by law to dress to his taste. Same thing,,,
Best stopped the minute they start up the idea.
“Is it majority rule? Or, if not, what then is our standard?”
NO, it isn’t majority rule, it is a constitutional republic. The standard is, does it pick your pocket or break your bone? If not, freedom is the default. No society needs the preachers often good ideas to have force of law. I have yet to have you articulate why it should be a law to make women dress to the standard of the most modest people here. Thats the taliban way.
Thats the operating system called “Europe 1.0”
“The standard is, does it pick your pocket or break your bone? If not, freedom is the default.”
I may or may not agree with you, but that’s not the Constitutional way.
The Constitutional way is to leave all such matters to the states.
Presumably, in those states, an Orthodox Russian priest may advocate for what he thinks best; so can a Roman Catholic, an agnostic, a Methodist, a Jew. Then people vote, either for the law or for their representative, etc.
My point is the Orthodox Russian priest, in America, would be perfectly appropriate in advocating for a dress code in his state. The fact that his opinion stems from his religious belief is not germane.
“The answer is this,, we do not codify religious belief into law.”
No, the answer is, all law is codified religious belief of one type or the other.
And the religious of all stripes can advocate for the laws they want, in our system, freely and without apology.
‘The original point wasa that the moral fiber of Russia has many bigger problems for this priest’s attention than miniskirts. Alcohol strikes me as a core issue because whatever else he wants to preach might be more effective with a sober congregation and its abuse in Russia is so widespread.’
Exactly, skirt is the least of problems for Church to bother.
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.