From: jp@moscom.com (Jim Palmeri)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Beachfront U.S.A. Loses Los Angeles Lawsuit
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:00:50 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corp., Pittsford NY

In article <39387@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cs161feu@sdcc10.ucsd.edu (Anthony Minkoff) writes:
>an725@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Paul L. Fortman, Jr.) writes:
>>It seems to me that any law against nudity would be unconstitutional,
>>especially when based on "moral" grounds.  It seems to me that this 
>>would be based on religious beliefs and would be violating the seperation
>>of church and state, thus unconstitutional.
>
>This idea has been tried, and ultimately rejected by just about
>every court in the land.  The "accepted" legal idea is that laws
>which are based on morality which may have had their foundations in
>religion are not in violation of the First Amendment.
>
>And there is something to be said for this idea.  For example, can
>you tell me why cruelty to animals ought to be illegal?  Just about
>everybody agrees that it should (and I'm not talking about
>scientific experimenting here, or fur trapping, or whatever; just
>something "obviously" wrong like getting a dog and torturing it just
>for the fun of it).  And I'm sure you could, if you tried, develop a
>reasonably cogent argument against it without invoking a "God's
>creatures" sort of idea.  But for most people, a knee-jerk, "It's
>just immoral, that's why," is the only response possible.
>
>Heck, one could even make a reasonably plausible arguement that
>societal injunctions against murder derive from the Ten
>Commandments.  Certainly you could make a case for murder laws being
>a societal necessity, with or without religion, but others could
>make a case (very weak, IMO, but it seems strong to them) that
>proper attire is a societal necessity.
>
>It's all a matter of opinion, and you can't invalidate a person's
>opinion simply because he learned his values at church.





It's NOT a matter of opinion!  It is a matter of human and animal
rights.  There is a recognition that animals that feel pain have
some minimal rights as to not to be subjected to unnecessary pain,
even though they do not have the level of sentience that human 
beings possess.

Murder is a violation of one of the primary inalienable rights of 
human beings.

Most all of the rules that evolved to protect the rights of individuals
came from learned understandings about human nature.  When individuals
fail to respect the rights of others, either through ignorance, or
because of greed or selfishness, the people of society create laws to
protect themselves.  These are the valid laws.  Just because most of the
religions pick these rules up as part of their creed does not mean they
were derived from religion. 

The laws that get created that are based solely upon personal,
traditional, or religious moral values that have nothing to do with
protecting the rights of individuals are the invalid laws of society.

It is a matter of a diligent, intelligent and sincere study of the
nature of human rights that will determine whether or not a given law is
valid; not opinion.  It is not a simple matter.

And therein lies the problem.  A lot of stupid people making laws
willy-nilly without thinking.....laws based upon their personal opinion
forged through years of religious conditioning, not the facts of
human existence.  

Collectively, we all have to take the blame, we vote for the people
who make the laws.  And we vote for the person who picks the people
for the supreme court, who are supposed to protect us from invalid
laws.

Paul Fortman is absoulutely correct, despite the fact that most
of the courts in our nation don't have the intellectual capacity
to understand that.

Jim P.
-- 
Jim P.   (jp@moscom.com)
Newsgroups: rec.nude