Why Public Nudity Is Wrong (And why San Francisco, by the barest majority, is right to ban it)

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.

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 one’s 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 man’s chest and a woman’s, women should be free to walk around topless, just as men do.

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 animal’s 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 animal–human 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.

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. ‘It’s telling people they should be ashamed to be naked, and that’s 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. It’s 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 Stardust’s values, is yet to rule.

And it’s 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

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.

The Bible does not force anything but the moral law on unbelievers.

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.

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.