What would it take?

[luvnaturism]

In the US, as in many other countries, naturism is regarded merely as an activity. There is no inherent right to be nude where you can reasonably expect to be seen by others. This is a form of self-expression for which there is no established constitutional right.

I have seen numerous comments that naturism must move from being merely recreation to become an actual philosophy or religion in order for the courts to grant the constitutional protection for free speech/free practice of religion. With that in mind, here are some questions.

1. What would be the essential elements of a philosphy of naturism?

2. What would be the essential elements of a theology of a naturist church?

3. What behavior would offer credible evidence that a person was entitled to claim protection under either of the above categories? This question requires explanation, given below.

EXAMPLE: the US has always had a category in its draft classification system for Conscientious Objectors. These people are protected by law from being forced to serve as armed combatants. However, you cannot receive this protection merely by claiming it. At minimum you must provide a coherent discussion of your system of beliefs that preclude participation in combat, these beliefs rising to a level equivalent to religous beliefs. Many applicants cannot meet this test.

A Draft Board or military authority examining a request for CO status will also look for behaviors that support the stated belief. Active participation in an organization that supports non-violent solutions to world problems adds credibility. Participation in an organization that promotes the military diminishes credibility.

[Trailscout]

Maybe you would want to review documentation on the "Frei Korper Kultur" movement, which began in Germany and was and is definitely a philosophy which includes nudism among its principles.
FKK as it is known for short, was originally conceived as a movement of mental and spiritual discipline and health practices which included nudism.

Modern nudism developed from the FKK philosophy.

I am very interested in it myself, but I haven't found much in print and I speak very little German. I wonder if any of the original FKK precepts are available in English.

I should add that American naturism is an equally important phenomenon. It arose from the free-beach activism of the 1960's and early 70's, which was part of the broader hippie movement.
Some practitioners of the hippie lifestyle advocated social nudity as one of the ways that one can break free of the strictures and prudery of their parents' generation. The increasing environmental consciousness of the youth of that era encouraged some to seek "getting back to nature" by being nude outdoors. This new generation of naturists was not always comfortable in old-fashioned nudist resorts and many traditional nudists shunned nudity on public beaches and avoided the spotlight that the pro-nudism social activists sought.

I believe that one can still see two basic camps: the traditional reclusive resort nudist and the nature-loving social activist naturist, but now with a lot more overlap in outlook between these stereotypes than in the past.

There is another category that you might describe as "nudity-tolerant textilers", i.e., people who basically live textile lives, but might go naked on a nude beach on a lark.

Some people might even incorporate a fair amount of casual nudity into their lives without adopting an underlying philosophy of nudism. This would certainly be true of many traditionally nude tribal peoples of the world's tropical rainforests. And it is also true that many people in our own high-tech society make a lot of decisions in life based simply on comfort and convenience, without a lot of angst and soul-searching.

I think that evaluating the history of nudism and naturism as social movements and philosophies is a necessary prelude to formulating a viable nudist religion or nudist church.

It seems to me that nudism should not stand alone as a school of thought, but be part of a more encompassing philosophy of life.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luvnaturism:
In the US, as in many other countries, naturism is regarded merely as an activity. There is no inherent right to be nude where you can reasonably expect to be seen by others. This is a form of self-expression for which there is no established constitutional right.

I have seen numerous comments that naturism must move from being merely recreation to become an actual philosophy or religion in order for the courts to grant the constitutional protection for free speech/free practice of religion. With that in mind, here are some questions.

1. What would be the essential elements of a philosphy of naturism?

2. What would be the essential elements of a theology of a naturist church?

3. What behavior would offer credible evidence that a person was entitled to claim protection under either of the above categories? This question requires explanation, given below.

EXAMPLE: the US has always had a category in its draft classification system for Conscientious Objectors. These people are protected by law from being forced to serve as armed combatants. However, you cannot receive this protection merely by claiming it. At minimum you must provide a coherent discussion of your system of beliefs that preclude participation in combat, these beliefs rising to a level equivalent to religous beliefs. Many applicants cannot meet this test.

A Draft Board or military authority examining a request for CO status will also look for behaviors that support the stated belief. Active participation in an organization that supports non-violent solutions to world problems adds credibility. Participation in an organization that promotes the military diminishes credibility. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A question has been raised about the legal rights of naturists and a comparison has been made to the provisions in law for religious conscientious objectors. I guess I qualify under both categories as I was a very vocifious conscientious objector in my younger days not only asserting the rights under the law for myself by sending out 25,000 letters to my fellow students urging them to do the same.

Nate Dekan has quoted a US Judge saying that the rights of Naturists will not be recognized until there is more of an organized effort.

However, there is a newer development in nine states. Since the US Supreme Court threw out the Religious Freedom Restoration Act on the federal level as it would have imposed too much of a burden on the States (it gave the States the right to pass a similar bill), nine states including Florida and Texas have adoped it. The law mandates that every agency of government do everything possible to accomodate all religious views even when it violates the law unless (and the burden shifts to the government) it can prove that to grant the relief requested by the person asserting a religious right would do signficiant danger to the community and there is absolutely no other remendy to satisfy the religious needs of the person.

Texas gives any agency of government up to 60 days to accomodate a person's request. Florida gives no stated time. However, all of the acts which I have read (I have them all) require that the State or governmental agency pay all of the legal fees of the religious objector should he prevail. So far, to my knowledge the only types of cases which have come up have been zoning cases where churches want to build or do something that is prohibited by zoning.

I can't conceive of any county (particularly in Florida) where we have clothing optional beaches and the Florida Supreme Court has held twice that nude is not lewd succssfully challenging any Christian who would hold that his/her Christian beliefs, consistent with Biblical times, consisent with early nude Christian baptisms, consitent with other doctrines found in the Scriptures, with the idea of humbleness could long sustain an argument that they would not have to grant relief and provide for reasonable areas for clothing optional beaches and parks. No county wants to get stuck with millions of dollars in legal bills which could easily happen and perhaps punitive damages. Tampa recently had to pay $135,000 to a prostitute who was charged and convicted on prostitution; charged and initially convicted on exposing herself which was overturned in the 12th Circuit Court on which she then sued for false arrest. In fact, I believe that a case could be made to require everything to be open such as in Denmark but I would not recommend that. Naturist Christian is beginning to work on a book(s) and it is our position that Naturism is and must be part of true Christianity. I want to proceed slowly before writing to our Commissioners requesting accommodations (particularly since I don't particularly enjoy the beach anyhow (but that need not be known). I do think a good plan needs to be worked out and we should seek out quality legal counsel since their fees must be paid by the State unless the County or municipality grants the request immediately. I would be happy to explore this further here and on our NaturistChristian site at NaturistChristian@yahoogroups.com.

Not only do we have the Pope's statement but we also have the statement of the Anglican Church in 2000.

It should also be noted that there are probably more naturists today than there were originally conscientious objectors -- though conscientious objection had a history with the founding of our nation.

Certainly those with a religious belief have a much stronger change of prevailing than do our non religious brethren. On the other hand, in one of the last Conscientious objector cases involving folk singer Pete Seeger who was an agnostic, the US Supreme Court held that any strongly held belief system constituted a "religious" belief giving religion a much broader legal definition than it ever had before. Before Congress had required a belief in a Supreme Being. Pete Seeger then became a Quaker and his sentence for draft evasion was overturned.

Bill Martin, Moderator NaturistChristian
(Quaker)

[luvnaturism]

Friend Bill Martin -

There's a lot of fascinating information there that I didn't know. Thank you.

This is far too great an opportunity to mess it up or to fail to assert all rights -- after a well thought out plan of action with top notch (contingency) attorneys on board. While only nine states (none on the west coast) have adopted it, Florida and Texas, Alabama, Connecticut and 5 more have adopted it. Somehow, we need to get some acton going. I posted it here and on our NaturistChristian-Legal group and your's is the only response.

Bill Martin

[beavis]

An interesting approach for sure. As much as the logic and legal thread appears to offer an opportunity to promote nudism, the linking of the effort to Christianity may be a two-edged sword. While putting up a legitimate philosophy in front (to gain public acceptance), you may find quite a number of nudists/naturists that will see the Christianity front an attempt at religious conversion. Hmmmm, what to do... /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[luvnaturism]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DNat928:
....As much as the logic and legal thread appears to offer an opportunity to promote nudism, the linking of the effort to Christianity may be a two-edged sword.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I started the thread, and now I'm not sure whether your comment is directed to me or to Friend. Or maybe both?

My post tried to be clear that I don't see this as "either/or" but as "both/and." Someone may want to develop both a secular philosphy of naturism and a Christian theology of naturism. Others may want to explore one or the other.

Nor shouId this been seen as exclusive to Christians. I feel sure that there are other religious points of view that could be developed to affirm naturism, but I'm only qualified to address Christianity.

It isn't my impression that Friend intended to imply that the legal opportunity exists only for Christians, but rather that it looks like an easy case for Christians to make.

I think the rights of naturists would advance much more quickly with an aggressive legal push, perhaps helped along with some good old traditional demonstrations. But I'm doubtful about it happening any time soon. Most naturists just want to be left alone so they can chill out in the sun. As a group we're too relaxed to be aggressive about anything!

It's so good to have a good discussion where others bring out good points and all is leading in the same direction.

Having spent a lot of time in Civil Rights including legislation, it is my opinion that the Religious Freedom Resotration Acts provide an excellent avenue for rather fast action given the fact that if the governmental agencies don't allow full religious expression essentially immediately, then they must pay all legal expenses. I know of few county governments that wold like to be hit with multi-million dollar fees for attorneys. Most would try to work out an accomodation.

I've also stated that whle there may be other definitions out there, the US Supreme Court defined religion (in the Pete Seeger conscientious objection case) as "any strongly held belief system." Based on that it would seem to me that almost anyone could assert a religious belief and come under the act. However, I do believe that one who asserts a traditional Christian (or other religious belief) would have a somewhat easier time. I went to my files to find my folder on all the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts and they are out of the file. I will find the appropriate link so members can read the acts for themselves. and will post it within a couple of days.

Bill Martin
Venice, FL

It's always a case that when you want a file, it's out of the file or missing. I ha the Religious Freedom Restoration Act file out a month ago and sent portions to a friend in Texas. At that time my records showed that 9 states had adopted it. Going back and doing a search today I find that as of now eleven states have adopted it though I haven't had chance to review the contents of the new states. States currently with Religious Freedom Restoration Acts include:

Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Texas. It is being pushed hard in Pennsylvania especially by the Catholic Conference. There is much more material on the Internet now than a few months ago and I will try to review it to see what if any cases have been resolved or are pending as a result of these acts.

Bill Martin

[Gary Naturist]

I started a thread some time ago on this topic and another nudist site and got very little response, with some positive but some negative ("I hope that you are joking").

I'm delighted to see that there are supporters for the idea of starting a religion based on nudity and that there is a legal means to pursue this possibility.

Gary

The Yahoo website NaturistChristian is sponsored and supported by a legitimate 501-c-3 Florida not for Profit religious corporation recognized as a church. I beieve that next year all of the directors will be members of the management team of NaturistChristian. We are hoping to be able to use the charitable status (tax deductibility) status to secure some grants to undertake necessary studies to further support the beliefs and propositions held by most naturists that naturism is actually beneficial and reduces teen pregnancy and sexual crimes and has a positive social result. We may also provide for any naturist to have joint membership with their church and a Christian naturist "church" or I actually prefer the word "fellowship."

Bill Martin
Venice, FL

[Naked Bob 2]

I think this is a great idea! I hope very much that it suceeds. I think that the linking of the two issues with one so recognizable to the public at large will win us mass support. Possibly even tax exempt status. I am surprised that this hasn't been tried before. Has anyone done any research to see if it has been tried before? I seem to recall a bit on the history channel about the Adamites a group that flourished in the middle ages until around the inquisition or so. I suppose the most recent association would be with the communes of the 60's. Still they were a counter culture group well outside of the mainstream of the era. Let us know if anyone starts a nude church. I'm sure you would find lots of converts here.

[nudistwheelchair]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Naked Bob 2:
I think this is a great idea! I hope very much that it suceeds. I think that the linking of the two issues with one so recognizable to the public at large will win us mass support. Possibly even tax exempt status. I am surprised that this hasn't been tried before. Has anyone done any research to see if it has been tried before? I seem to recall a bit on the history channel about the Adamites a group that flourished in the middle ages until around the inquisition or so. I suppose the most recent association would be with the communes of the 60's. Still they were a counter culture group well outside of the mainstream of the era. Let us know if anyone starts a nude church. I'm sure you would find lots of converts here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm a christan and Jesus came to unviel everyone so we no longer to pretend to hide from God
so I'm in.

[Trailscout]

I would be proud to allign myself with a Christian Naturist denomination. It brings Christians back to a more biblical view of the body, but it goes beyond mere approval of social nudity. Nudism also stresses some core values that Christians need to reemphasize, such as body acceptance, reintegrating the physical and spiritual worlds (a potential spur to social action), a return to stewardship of the land, harmony with natural ecosystems, honoring the creative artistic genius of God. Nudists tend to gather in cohesive communities that demand accountability, shared responsibility for safety, and nudist values tend toward the egalitarianism that the early church had and we hope to regain.

I am also aware of groups such as Chiropractors and Masonic orders that have a distinct philosophy or worldview that offers common ground for a pantheon of faiths.

I think nudism needs a broad guiding philosophy for its own benefit as well as something with which to face the outside world and give us legal recognition.

A Christian nudist denomination and a general nudist philosophy that many belief system can agree on are not mutually exclusive premises!

[splitfeather]

/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Splitfeather, Did you forget what you wanted to say? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[Mr.Ed]

Hi I think when more state adopt the Freedom Restoration Act on the federal level there will be
more law reform in all state and county levels,I live in Arkansas and here is what the state law says about any nudity. and there nothing mention about religion.ARKANSAS

? 5-68-204. Nudism

(a) The term "nudism" as used in this section is defined to be the act or acts of a person or persons congregating or gathering with his, her, or their private parts exposed in the presence of one (1) or more persons of the opposite sex as a form of social practice.

(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the enumerated acts when:

(1) The purpose of the person committing the act or acts is to render medical or surgical treatment, or to determine the need for medical or surgical treatment, or to cleanse such sexual part, and the person committing such act is a licensed physician, as defined by ?17-80-101, or any such physician of a sister state making a professional call into Arkansas, or the person committing any such act did so under the professional direction of any such physician, or the person committing any such act is a nurse duly registered or licensed by the Arkansas State Board of Nurse Examiners; or

(2) When the persons are married legally one to another.

(c) It shall be unlawful for any person, club, camp, corporation, partnership, association, or organization to advocate, demonstrate, or promote nudism, or for any person to rent, lease, or otherwise permit his land, premises, or buildings to be used for the purpose of advocating, demonstrating, or promoting nudism

(d) Any person, club, camp, corporation, partnership, association, or organization violating any of the provisions of ? 5-68-204 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined in any sum not less than fifty dollars ($50.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or imprisoned for not less than thirty (30) days nor more than six (6) months, or both such fine and imprisonment for each offense.

This is a small price to pay to have my freedom and beliefs.

God bless and have a great nude day!

[Jochanaan]

My own view (I hate the word "opinion" in this context) is that it's easy to make a case that the Bible is not against nudism, but far more difficult to make a case that the Scriptures actually promote nudity. Sure, you have Genesis 2:25 and Isaiah 20, but you also have Exodus 28:42-43 and Leviticus 18 (I know that's not about physical nakedness but some opposing lawyers will conveniently disregard that). Any other views from Christians?

[Trailscout]

Scripture does not have a specific doctrine of nudity, but God's reaction to Adam's claim to being naked was: "Who told you that you were naked?" Far from agreeing with Adam, God did not regard being clothes-free as being deprived of covering. Humanity was given skin for covering and that was enough.

I would not go so far as to say that it is difficult to prove that the Bible actually advocates nudity. True there are no specific verses commanding nudity, but one could quickly build a case for nudity from general principles:

1. If the human body is God's handiwork as scripture attests, then one could argue that the body is beautiful and that it would be wrong not to display the nude body for the purpose of glorifying the artist who make it, namely God.

2. If it can be shown that exposure of the entire skin to fresh air and moderate sunlight is healthful, then nudity is simply good stewardship of the body we are given.

3. If regular social nudity can be shown to defuse sexual tension, help promote self-esteem in growing children, and provide other psychological benefits, then barring any commandments to the contrary, social nudity would be a wise practice.

4. If it is established that social nudity does not lead to sin, and it can be demonstrated that nudity is often more comfortable for swimming and other outdoor recreation in mild to hot weather, then it should be seen as one of life's innocent pleasures, a blessing from God.

5. Nudity before God acknowledges our total reliance on Him for covering for sin. In the book of Exodus, God tells Moses to take off his shoes because he stood on holy ground. Granted, that is not a command for total nudity, but if the bare feet of a sinful but forgiven man are acceptable, it follows that God regards manmade articles of clothing as being symbolically too unclean to wear into a holy place. This is cooberated by the accounts of Old Testament prophets who stripped naked when the power of God fell on them.
The carnal (sinful) mind by contrast tries to solve a spiritual problem: sin guilt, with a physical solution: body shame covered by cloth.

There are already religions out there that hold nudity sacred.... why invent another, especially one that will only apply to some people? Wouldn't the government take into account that the "religion" was started after the law was passed? Wouldn't that hurt it's credibility?
I think a better way to get this point across would be to use a religion that long ago established that nudity was an integral part of their beliefs rather than fabricate one where nudity just kinda popped up after those laws went into effect.

[Trailscout]

Frei Korper Kultur would do nicely. It has been around for over a century and would be inclusive enough that Christians, Jews, Neopagans, virtually anyone could subscribe to its tenets.

[Rik]

I try not to intrude in these religious arguments where, it seems to me, that people who struggle with their consciences look for any justification in the bible to support their views on nudism.

But all of these suggestions for attempting to rationalize nudity through religion, philosphy etc are really just pandering to the majority view that there is something weird, offensive or whatever about the naked human form. Isn't it about time that we stopped apologizing for being human and started demanding of those who have, shall we say, a clothing fetish to justify why they insist on us and them being covered at all times?

OK, OK, I know we have to live in the real world and have to deal with laws, culture, neighbours and attitudes but as long as we go on believing that we have to justify ourselves to others, and the more we seek toleration rather than acceptance, the harder the struggle will be.

Rik

[Trailscout]

Rik,

You presume that my most recent post was an effort to assuage my guilty conscience.

I was merely suggesting a legal strategy to gain legal sanction for what I regard as behavior that harms no one and is beneficial to me.
I wish we didn't have to use legal technicalities to obtain what should be our God-given rights, and such tactics are not substitute for a much broader legal recognition of the harmlessness of simple nudity. This is merely a step toward our goal.

As for my own religious views, I deplore a legalistic attitude that seeks to justify nudity by looking for some verse that says "thou shalt be nude when thou can". I hope you realize that many, perhaps most Christians turn to the scriptures to seek general principles for living a good life rather than quibbling over minutia.
Please give us credit for a little common sense!

But maybe we should, as you imply, forget about creating a "First Church of Skinnydipping" and press for a legal system that gives people a great deal of latitude in all manner of civil liberty issues. In America we have the Libertarian Party that espouses just such ideals. The right to dress or undress in public is just one of many such matters that government would do well to stay out of.

Perhaps we are closer to agreement on this topic than you think.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
You presume that my most recent post was an effort to assuage my guilty conscience. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I wasn't referring to anyone in particular but rather a general observation of those that appear to seek justification for their beliefs rather than just believing them. Why else is there a need to have a "Nudity and Religion" section in these forums if not for people to discuss the impact of one on the other.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I wish we didn't have to use legal technicalities to obtain what should be our God-given rights, and such tactics are not substitute for a much broader legal recognition of the harmlessness of simple nudity. This is merely a step toward our goal. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree although what you call "God-given rights" I would call "human rights".
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I hope you realize that many, perhaps most Christians turn to the scriptures to seek general principles for living a good life rather than quibbling over minutia. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But not necessarily on this discussion board. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Please give us credit for a little common sense! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I do.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But maybe we should ...press for a legal system that gives people a great deal of latitude in all manner of civil liberty issues. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes but it has to start from the premise that to be naked is to be human and not seek merely to encourage toleration of a basic human (or God-given if you prefer) right.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Perhaps we are closer to agreement on this topic than you think. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm sure we are.

Rik

I think the Nudity and Religion section was started for those whose religious beliefs tell them that nudity is wrong, while their "heart" says it isn't. There is a conflict going on with many people whose religion teaches something contrary to what they personally believe. The Bible even says, "avoid all APPEARANCE of evil". Christians need other Christians with whom to talk about conflicting beliefs which we all have.

I'm sorry, Rik, that you can't understand the Christian point of view on religious beliefs, but they're very important to us. I had a social worker at my place of work who told me that I placed too much importance on church. That was his opinion (or as someone said he preferred, point of view), but that didn't make him right and me wrong just because he had a better education than I. I realize that we often bring religion into the discussion in other sections, but I for one cannot keep my beliefs out of any discussion without denying what I believe. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
I think the Nudity and Religion section was started for those whose religious beliefs tell them that nudity is wrong, while their "heart" says it isn't. There is a conflict going on with many people whose religion teaches something contrary to what they personally believe. ...

I'm sorry, Rik, that you can't understand the Christian point of view on religious beliefs, but they're very important to us. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Jon-Marc, I wouldn't for a moment suggest that your religious beliefs are not important but, as you say yourself, there is a conflict between what you're taught to believe and what you actually believe and it appears to me sometimes that the only way you can resolve this is by looking for relevant quotes in the bible and interpreting them to support your personal beliefs. I'm sure the religious opponents of nudism can point to an equal number of biblical quotes and interpret them to support their own anti-nudist views. I suppose the bottom line is that you have doubts about your belief in nudism.

If you take religion out of the question altogether and look at nudism from a human perspective you begin to see that the arguments in favour of nudism far outweigh the arguments against which, as we've seen in another thread, never amount to much more than "I just don't like it". I'm sure there are many aspects of being human for which there are no religious teachings to prevent people getting on with their lives (e.g. toenail cutting, nose blowing, urinating, exposing your elbow etc) so maybe a way to move forward is to play down the religious aspects of nudism and promote it as just being human.

To suggest, as has been, that a possible solution to create a better deal for naturists is to form a religion or some pseudo-religious philosophical group would, I think, work against nudism as such an organization would no doubt be seen as just another crazy cult and would, at best, attract only those of a fanatical nature. It's the hearts and minds of the majority - let's call them the soft majority - that we need to tackle: not through cultism but through humanism because the one thing which binds all the various factions, whether religion, cult, philosophy, culture etc, is being human.

Rik

[Frank R]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rik:
[QUOTE]To suggest, as has been, that a possible solution to create a better deal for naturists is to form a religion or some pseudo-religious philosophical group would, I think, work against nudism as such an organization would no doubt be seen as just another crazy cult and would, at best, attract only those of a fanatical nature. It's the hearts and minds of the majority - let's call them the soft majority - that we need to tackle: not through cultism but through humanism because the one thing which binds all the various factions, whether religion, cult, philosophy, culture etc, is being human.
Rik <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Rik - I agree with you 100%. What we do not need is a new religious cult that would be seen by most people as just another bunch of wacko nuts trying to evade some law. Most religious groups are like laws in my opinion - we have far too many already so let's not make it any worse.

[Trailscout]

Rik,

Christians are very diverse and each denomination has its own customs and traditions. While most of us respect the other denominations, we tend to stick with what we grew up with.

I think a new denomination whose sole focus and creed is nudism would try to cram us all into one mold and would not appeal to most people.

The fact is, the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England seem to have nearly gone official with their tolerance and understanding of social nudity. In other denominations, individual congregations do not presume to take a stand on social nudity and it is simply a non-issue.

I think we have also discussed the merits of a site such as Nate Dekan's, which speaks specifically to those who have misgivings about social nudity or worse, were taught body shame.
I can assure you that an appeal to humanism would not carry much weight with the people Nate hopes to reach. He simply must address the specific teachings if the damage is to be undone.

Earlier I said that I deplore legalistic parsing of every jot and tittle of scripture to extract an excuse for going nude. Nate is not pandering to that either, but he must answer the most common objections raised by conservatives, explaining the context of the very verses they use as ammunition. More importantly, Nate also goes on to teach broader principles that can counteract this annoying tendency to build an entire doctrine around one verse.

[steevo]

WOW,
I have loved this thread more than any other I've read yet. And I've been reading/particpating this forum for some time now.
This isn't meant to upset anyone, but there is a resort in New Hampshire that has been on TV. The News I beleive it was, that actually went onto their premises and showed them and their minister all nude(obviously covering what they needed to).
Anyway you all got me work up over this topic. And I can't wait to hear more. It actually felt like we were acommplishing something. I'm not trying to sound flip by saying that either. I mean it.
I LOVE this site because it gives me HOPE for a better future. God only knows that is all i've ever wanted. Espasially(?) since I've gone to war to see a better world.
Wow, getting too emotional now, but I mean it.
Steevo Here /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[steevo]

One more thought on this subject. When I think back on some of the other threads in the past, I remember the subject of some resorts not allowing singles or at least on a limited bases.
It seems to me, we need to look at some of our own concerns. And then we might understand the so called concerns of the "outside world"
Sorry to through in a wrench, but maybe we can learn from it.
Steevo Here /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif