[ Outline ] · Standard · Linear+ Topless Beaches, OK or not?

[Lynette]

As many of you already know, I grew up in a place where women being topless on a beach was no big deal. Almost everywhere I've been outside the US, it's that way too. Personally, except when I was in the US for school and such, I've never worn a top on any beach. Here on the isalnd where I live women walk up and down the beaches topless all the time. Nobody except maybe overly religious types seem to mind.
I could never understand why Americans seem to think boobs are such a bad thing when the rest of the world seems to be open to admiring them even in public. In the states, if a guy walks up to you on the beach and says "nice breasts" (even with a top on) most women will act genuinely pissed or embarrassed. Here, women just say thank you, take it as a compliment, and go on their way.
So, is being topless on public beaches a good thing? Bad thing? Or, what?And.why does American society seem to think it's so bad? Is it because when the English people(religious based puritans) who left England and settled in America brought all those old religious based principles with them? And to this day they've stuck? If so, it seems a shame that after two hundred years, American society hasn't been able to shed something like the sight of some bare breasts on a beach is a bad thing.
*KIISES*

[Lynette]

Rackman,
It shouldn't be hard to buy into at all. You have to remeber that all though the puritans were the minority, they were also the most politically powerful. And, when you consider that later they were directly responsible for the formation and founding republican part, it should be easy to recognize the fact that their religious and idiolgical beliefs would continue to be handed down. They are not the only people in american history to pass along their beliefs for the past 300 years. If you don't think so, you should sit down with a free Mason sometime and ask some questions. You also have to remember that electing presidents (and public officials) who openly proclaim the fact that they are "born-again christians".
Here we go! The separation between Church and State in the US has become somewhat of a farce. Religious fundementalist of any belief involved in upper levels of government will always be a dangerous thing when it comes down to individual freedoms. I know this is all a bit heavy considering we're talking about a freedon as insignificant as toples sunbathing. But, it is applicable none-the-less.
By the way, the women asked me if I was from another country, but were very rude in the way they approached me. I always felt that a friendly "we don't do that here sweetie" would have been good. But they made me feel like I was doing something horrible. Maybe it was the fact that they were three middle aged, homely women that appeared to not have much going for them. They really came of like the beach-tittie police or something.

[rackman]

.. when you consider that later they [the Puritans] were directly responsible for the formation and founding republican part[y]

I've never studied Puritan history, so I didn't know that the Puritans were still an influential group by the time the Republican party was founded (around 1860's?). I also, of course, didn't know that the Puritans were "directy responsible" for founding the Republican party. I'll have to do some reading on this out of curiosity.

.. Here we go! The separation between Church and State in the US has become somewhat of a farce

Sometimes you have to keep in mind that the phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution. Also, know that the majority of the the framers of the Constitution were deeply religious people. Even the Declaration attributes our "inalienable rights" to a "Creator" (note that Jefferson was a Deist).

Although I am in no way an advocate of combining church and government, I think it's important to know the true history of the founding of the United States. Despite the fact that so many of the Founding Fathers were devout Christians, they crafted a Constitution that granted individual freedoms that were nearly unheard of at the time. The most glaring evidence of their religious tolerance was that the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibing the free exercise thereof..."

If the Founding Fathers were all a bunch of oppressive Puritans, why did they design the government to allow citizens absolute religious freedom?

To go back to one of my earlier posts, it's the "majority rule" and "public good" concepts that have steadily eroded our individual freedoms, NOT the religious roots of the founding of the United States.

Are we still talking about topless sunbathing?

[Lynette]

I've never studied Puritan history, so I didn't know that the Puritans were still an influential group by the time the Republican party was founded (around 1860's?).  I also, of course, didn't know that the Puritans were "directy responsible" for founding the Republican party.  I'll have to do some reading on this out of curiosity.
Sometimes you have to keep in mind that the phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution.  Also, know that the majority of the the framers of the Constitution were deeply religious people.  Even the Declaration attributes our "inalienable rights" to a "Creator" (note that Jefferson was a Deist).

Although I am in no way an advocate of combining church and government, I think it's important to know the true history of the founding of the United States.  Despite the fact that so many of the Founding Fathers were devout Christians, they crafted a Constitution that granted individual freedoms that were nearly unheard of at the time.  The most glaring evidence of their religious tolerance was that the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibing the free exercise thereof..."

If the Founding Fathers were all a bunch of oppressive Puritans, why did they design the government to allow citizens absolute religious freedom?

To go back to one of my earlier posts, it's the "majority rule" and "public good" concepts that have steadily eroded our individual freedoms, NOT the religious roots of the founding of the United States.

Are we still talking about topless sunbathing? 

Actually, I believe that th whole reason for the separation of chusrch and state was tp protect the politicians from ever being challanged by organized religion such as we now see in the middle east. There it's common place to see religious parties in power. It's just a way the good-ol-boys had on securing their power base against what could be their only threat to power.

[diane26]

I have gotten into the Seperation debate many times and from my understanding it was set up to protect religions.But as stated it is NOT in the constituion, you can find some very interesting stuff when researching the topic at hand though.

[Isaac_Putin]

I have gotten into the Seperation debate many times and from my understanding it was set up to protect religions.But as stated it is NOT in the constituion, you can find some very interesting stuff when researching the topic at hand though.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

The way it is written is vague and open to interpretation. Just because something isn't said literally, doesn't mean that you cannot reasonably infer that they are implying a separation of church and state. For that matter, I don't think anyone here has even defined what they themselves think church/state separation means.

[Bobaloo]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

The way it is written is vague and open to interpretation.  Just because something isn't said literally, doesn't mean that you cannot reasonably infer that they are implying a separation of church and state.  For that matter, I don't think anyone here has even defined what they themselves think church/state separation means.

Oh man!!! We had boobs in here and now we get more paragraphs.

Anyone up for posting more boobs on the beach??? Apparantly Lynette just isn't enough to deter isaac . Can't imagine how that's possible She could stop me in my tracks with that body anytime.

[diane26]

Oh man!!!  We had boobs in here and now we get more paragraphs. 

Anyone up for posting more boobs on the beach???  Apparantly Lynette just isn't enough to deter isaac .  Can't imagine how that's possible   She could stop me in my tracks with that body anytime.

OH MAN THIS IS HILLARIOUS AND I CAN NOT EVEN SAY WHY. Issac will know

[Bobaloo]

OH MAN THIS IS HILLARIOUS AND I CAN NOT EVEN SAY WHY. Issac will know

Now I'm intrigued. I posted something hilarious for once and I dont' even know what the hell I said that was so funny