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

National Review ^ | 12/04/2012 | Dennis Prager

[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 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.

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 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.

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. ‘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

[Dead Corpse]

As I have pointed out to you before, libertarian are not libertines.

We just think that the perverts in government are not the place to look for morality.

History is on our side.

[PieterCasparzen]

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss and considering my simple laymen’s opinions.

So you'd exchange a humanist tyrant for a religious one...

The Bible is not tyranny, God forbid; every Jew and Christian knows that.

The idea of a religious tyrant coming to power does not consider another question.

The question is: we have political leaders. Do we want them bound to the limits of the Bible or not ?

They are bound right now by the Constitution. They have gone far beyond it's intent. How did that happen ? Because it is vague and ambiguous.

The Bible tells us that it is perfect counsel revealed by God. The problem is not with the Bible, then, only with men.

With the Constitution - not the Word of God, but a document composed by man - its vagueness and ambiguity is a problem.

We know that men will always be a problem - do we want our founding documents to also have problems of being vague and ambiguous ?

As for the Founders, they did in fact expound on the limits of government.

Such writings are not explicitly referenced by the Constitution.

What the founders expounded is simply something for Courts to consider or not according to their whim. They are neither part of the Constitution nor law.

So no... You cannot incorporate Leviticus into the USC. Sorry.

Murder, theft and lying under oath were always incorporated into our laws. Adultery used to be, as was sabbath honoring. Other moral law was included as well, and some still is. When the pilgrims first got here, there were no moral laws in their law that were not also included in God's Law Word; that continued for perhaps 100-200 years.

No one said anything about the situation being tyrannical. Hundreds of years, no mention of tyranny. People understood that when people broke laws they had to be punished, and breaking the law was wrong.

In the latter 19th and early 20th centuries, we started adding moral laws, like prohibition, that added to the moral law of the Bible. By the latter half of the 20th century, we were getting rid of the moral laws we had.

Today, people immediately protest that Biblical law is tyranny whenever it's discussed.

Let's ask ourselves - where did that idea came from ? Who decided the Bible was tyranny and when did this happen ?

And here we are today; all sorts of “morals”, made up by man - are being made into law.

[itsahoot]

Libertinians are all about license and not liberty

There are many historical documents that prove public nudity was practice and encouraged by the founding fathers.</sarcasm>

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.

[Dead Corpse]

They are bound right now by the Constitution.

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.

[little jeremiah]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this 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.

[little jeremiah]

“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

[Dead Corpse]

Full quote:

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.

[little jeremiah]

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.

[little jeremiah]

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.

[little jeremiah]

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.

[GSWarrior]

Here is another reason it is wrong: I don’t want to sit on a bench where some naked guy’s butt and other privates were resting.

[Dead Corpse]

In that case, here's a gun... There's San Fransisco... You've got a lot of killing to do.

Or...

We boycott places like that until they implode. Then we can go back in and clean up the mess.

[Dead Corpse]

If you think Jefferson would high five the Libertarian Platform you’re out of your mind.

I don't expect anything of the sort. Heck, I don't even completely agree with the LP platform.

"l"ibertarian ideals? Now those I do completely agree with. The US Constitution is a very "l"ibertarian document.

Might be a really good idea to get back to that.

Replacing it with basically a Theocracy is stupid.

[Dead Corpse]

I don’t want to sit on a bench where some naked guy’s butt and other privates were resting.

Probably the best reason for such laws and the only one really defensible from any logical/moral standpoint.

[PieterCasparzen]

They are bound right now by the Constitution.

Actually, no. They aren't. That is why we have the mess we are in.

They are indeed legally bound, however the rule of law is simply being ignored. If the law is not enforced, it’s not the law’s fault, but the fault of the people who have accepted the responsibility of upholding it.

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?

That’s the thinking of the founders, which is why they designed a secular humanist Constitution, which has predictably lead to apostasy, which leads to national chastisement, i.e., pain and suffering. They would have had to figure out the core of belief that was a) Scripturally compliant and b) able to be agreed upon in order to write a Christian Constitution. However, due to a) the mix of denominations in America at the time and b) the rush the Constitution's authors were in, they were not inclined to tackle the challenge at that point. They did not tackle the slavery issue for the same reasons. I’m not saying that there was any possible way they would or could have drafted a Christian Constitution at that time, especially since all happens according to God’s plan. In the long run, perhaps America needs denominations to unify much more, as part of a general revival of faith, in order for national Covenanting to take place. Interestingly, because of the way history has unfolded, America's Constitution does not expressly link Christianity and our present moral failings.

The biggest law that people would go crazy about today would be the prohibition of blasphemy. That sounds outlandish today, but to oppose it is the height of hypocrisy for everyone who is so fanatical about tolerance. Refraining from blasphemy, when you think about it, is simply those who are not Christian simply showing respect and tolerance for them. Up until a few short years ago this was the norm in society and only crackpots complained about Christianity. Contrary to what many think, an explicitly Christian nation would not require anyone to believe or not believe in anything, since the Bible tells us that conversions can not be brought about by force or deception. A blasphemy law would have nothing at all to do with forcing people do something, simply prohibiting them from being intentionally and hatefully disrespectful.

I've only in my life ever seen one true instance of blasphemy, when I was robbed one Christmas (when I still observed it). I was on a long ride home, had stopped for dinner and ate at the bar in a restaurant. A wicked fellow was there, perhaps a bit drunk, was bruised up a bit after having been in a fight, and was itching for another one. He was menacing two couples sitting at the bar and the bartender. He spewed filthy speech, insulting everyone and everything except me. He needed a ride home, which, when I finished, I offered him. He spewed his speech during the ride, blaspheming, continually, purposefully, with vile hatred in his heart and he truly was deserving of the death penalty. I've never heard a person say f God that many times in one day, nor express such indiscriminate and vicious hatred, practically begging people to fight him (only somehow not me). Only after I was down the road did I notice that he had reached behind the seat and grabbed a bag with a $300 gift certificate I had purchased that day, so I had no gift when I arrived home. Incidentally, that was one instance that up until now I had not thought about since my conversion, where the Lord preserved me, even before I had turned to him.

Especially once you put "fallen beings" in charge of that much power...

As far as putting fallen beings in charge of writing a charter, fallen beings were "in charge of that much power" in the writing of the Constitution. That's all we have, fallen beings. The question is what does the Charter look like.

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.

This is the view of the writers of the Constitution, which is the predominant mentality to this day: State Churches created political problems. Historically speaking, however, the most provocative problems were rooted in the complex relationships between the various monarchies and the Papacy, which, to one extent or another in different times, was (and is) not only a Church but also a nation-state. So there was a persistent situation where one nation-state, external to other nations, had considerable power and influence inside their governments. If each nation had it's own national Church with no outside allegiances or influences outside of itself, many of the causes of wars would not have existed. Of course nothing in the Bible says that a monarch needs to be subject to any person in any other nation.

In post #38 you said “So you'd exchange a humanist tyrant for a religious one...”. Whether or not a leader winds up being a tyrant is independent of what faith they professes, or if they profess no faith. There can be Christian tyrants, Jewish tryants, Muslim tyrants, atheist tyrants, etc.

The assertion of exchanging a humanist tryant for a religious one implies that a professing-Christian leader of an explicitly Christian nation would inevitably lead to tryanny and a professing-Christian leader of an explicitly secular humanist nation would be less likely to lead to tryanny. The Constitution writers did not have that negative a view on Christianity or they would have banned it; no, instead, their idea was to simply not get into Christian doctrine at all so as to avoid disagreements in the short time during which they wrote and ratified the Constitution. I'd like to view the tyrant statement in the best light possible, that the implication is that regardless of having an explicitly Christian or humanist nation, either way, the leadership is fallible humans, which may lead to tyranny. Of course, tyranny is always a possiblity, as the best of human-devised governments can be corrupted. In any case, having the Bible as the rule and guide for life is infinitely better than not. IMHO, too often today, we see how much our government has overreached it’s Constitutional limits, and tend to think only about tyranny and forget about the role that government must play in restraining evil. If it does not fulfill that role, citizens are left entirely to their own devices in defending themselves, which is the law of the jungle, kill or be killed.

The Reformation happened because of efforts to correct doctrine. If the Church at that point had, even over decades, corrected doctrine sufficiently, the Protestant Churches may never have grown much. On the other hand, this would have lessened the impetus driving Reformed Christians’ flight to America.

Religious wars during the Reformation happened for the purpose of defending the faith. Even though there can only be one right side over some of the issues fought over, both sides in each war thought they were in the right at the time. In the case of people being persecuted for conscience, ultimately it must be understood and admitted whether or not their conscience was true to Scripture. This is because if it was, then they truly were being persecuted in the name of Christ. And if they were, and they were also being turned into outlaws as a group, then it was the right thing for the heads of the households to do, that is, to fight or flee, as seemed best at the time, so that their children might live according to God's Word and not according to heresy. To not fight or flee would be to save their children’s lives for the moment but damn their souls. The Bible gives full responsibility to parents to raise up their children according to God's Word, not to sit idly by as society or the Church around them apostasizes, then to let their children mingle with and learn from the apostates. From the point of view of the Church hierarchy at the time, it can certainly be claimed that they were trying to preserve the Church and keep it pure. So rather than reignite old angers, it would seem wisest for Christians today to simply learn from the past and continue to correct errors, with great care and patience, and move closer to truth.

If we calmly and rationally reason through things, we can see that perhaps all things happened according to God's will to serve his purposes. Mankind was. and of course still is being taught some hard lessons. Certainly we can see that our secular humanist government has nothing on which to base it's morality. Accordingly, morality is taken to be whatever each person wants as it suits them. We see this in the public nudity debate. Without any objective standard, in our moral-relativist society, clothing and nudity are merely a matter of individual taste. Even the public health argument does not hold water, since beachgoers are essentially in their underwear anyway, and that is often viewed as perfectly fine by people who are against public nudity. Does a bikini keep the "germies" from jumping from a person to the park bench ? It’s not a latex glove. Also, many men who are against public nudity of men have no issue with public nudity of women. Also, public health is a non-issue if the person is 50 feet away - no "germies" are going to bite someone 50 feet away. Obviously in that situation people are really saying the prefer that they and their families were not exposed to naked perverts walking around in public. But there is no purely logical argument for that which would not also apply to simply dressing promiscuously, which is also a matter of taste, if there is no objective moral law. One could also argue that if a nude person was ugly enough that instead of tempting people to fornicate that it would turn them off on sex permanently.

Christians would do well to remember that our faith is not to be hidden away but it should guide us in every part of our lives.

[PieterCasparzen]

But there is no purely logical argument for that which would not also apply to simply dressing promiscuously, which is also a matter of taste, if there is no objective moral law.

IMHO...

No, I'm wrong on that. If arguing against nudity and promiscuity, one could say that they are very wasteful and distracting because they cause economic inefficiency in society, which is true. Many examples: broken marriages, children born out of wedlock, bad career choices, wasting time, etc., etc.

Not many people want to admit that though. Of course, the Bible commands us to dress modestly and prohibits promiscuity. So those who do not want to abide by that rule reject the Bible and reject God. Perhaps some will listen to the purely logical argument. But once they've gone so far as to reject God in favor of promiscuity, they're typically inclined to laugh off the purely economic argument.

[little jeremiah]

As usual when people toss the word “theocracy” about, you claim that a theocracy is something that it is not. Another thing often conflated is the fact that I advocate laws against sodomy, for instance, at the STATE level. Abortion is not a state business, any more than states could pass a law legalizing murder. The fedgov should restrict itself to constitutional duties only, which would remove about 90% of what it illicity does.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theocracy

Noun

theocracy (plural theocracies)

1. Government under the control of a Church or state-sponsored religion.

2. Rule by God.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/theocracy?q=theocracy

Definition of theocracy
noun (plural theocracies)

A system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god: his ambition is to lead a worldwide theocracy

So, since I have not advocated a priest/cleric/rabbi/swami run government, your use of the word “theocracy” is a straw man. Instead, I value what these men have said. The statements below neither describe nor advocate theocracy.

“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites—in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity;—in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption;—in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite is placed somewhere: and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

— Edmund Burke

Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public
liberty and happiness.”

— Samuel Adams (letter to John Trumbull, 16 October 1778)

Of all the dispositions and habits which least to political
prosperity, Religion and morality are indespensable supports.
In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should
labor to subvert these great Pilliars of human happiness.

— George Washington (Farewell Address, 19 September 1796)

“[O]ur ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits, they believed, cannot safely be trusted on any other foundation than religious principle, nor any government be secure which is not supported by moral habits.”
— Daniel Webster, American Jurist and Senator

“It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of
Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits,
and humbly to implore his protection and favors.” –George
Washington

[Dead Corpse]

"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." --- Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814

Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

Codifying one will destroy this Right for all.

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." --- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

Restore us to a Constitutional government? Certainly. A common set of minimal laws that protects us from directly hurting each other or our property? Certainly. In fact, we have that already in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Supplant that Constitution with the Bible as was purposed up-thread?

No.

[little jeremiah]

You’re doing nothing but beating a straw man to death.

I’m not even a Christian nor do I consider the Bible inerrant. Find someone else to play with.

[Dead Corpse]

I am? You jumped in. Feel free to jump out again...