Rev. Mark H. Creech
The right to bare breasts?
By Rev. Mark H. Creech
In my home state of North Carolina, legislation has been introduced making it illegal for women to fully bare their breasts in public. The bill was introduced by Representatives Rayne Brown (R-Lexington) and Tim Moffitt (R-Asheville), in response to constituents concerns about topless rallies promoted by a group called Go Topless, an organization that's fighting for the so-called right of women to expose their breasts without violating any indecent exposure laws. They've already held topless protests in Asheville, North Carolina.
The legislation wouldn't prohibit breast feeding in public. Its purpose is only meant to clarify something that is not clear in North Carolina's statutes – that public indecency includes fully exposed breasts and should be a misdemeanor.
There are a number of humorous reasons why the legislation should be approved. One, most women are against such nudity because women never like to go someplace where all the women are wearing the same thing. Second, if women are allowed to parade around topless, it would essentially end the practice of blind dating. Third, actresses in the theatre could never again guarantee they would have a dress rehearsal. And finally, it would put a lot of Peeping Toms out of business. And, the list goes on.
But don't mistake my light hearted approach to this matter for failing to take the issue seriously. This is important legislation. It should be supported and the lawmakers behind it ought to be commended. Still, there is an underlying issue, I believe, even greater than the need for the legislative initiative itself.
Interestingly, the President of Go Topless, Nadine Gary argued, "Our rallies are aimed at bringing attention to a serious matter of unconstitutional, unequal treatment...women are still persecuted or arrested for going topless, while men aren't...To uphold the constitution, Representative Moffitt should honor its references to equality...Instead, he's attempting to widen the inequality gap when he should be protecting women's rights to go topless in his state or striving to see that men's nipples remain equally private."
Gary's advocacy for bare breasts in the name of "equality" shows the ridiculous ends to which our culture has corrupted phrases like "all men are created equal" and "equal treatment under the law."
When the Founders spoke of equality in the Declaration of Independence, they didn't mean that everything we do should be of equal significance, or that we should erase the differences of the sexes ordered by nature's God. Their emphasis was on the dignity of mankind – that all men are of equal significance to God – that all are made in His image. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution essentially contends all people, regardless of station, whether rich or poor, whether man or woman, no matter their race, their God-given rights to life, liberty, and property should be zealously protected by the state.
Today, however, equal rights have come to mean something ludicrous – that women in the name of reproductive rights and equality with men should be able to destroy their unborn children – that marriage should be redefined to also include the homosexual – that wealth should be redistributed to equalize the plight of the impoverished – that children should be allowed the capacity of autonomous actions over their parents – that women should serve in combat positions – that tolerance should mean every truth claim is equally valid to its counterpart. This changes the traditional concept of equality into a modern absurdity.
Of course, historical revisionist will argue that the meaning of equality is something that has always been evolving in American society. They'll site how some Founders were slave owners and equal rights for blacks was a long time coming. But the fact of the matter is slavery was something imposed on the Founders 200 years before them. Most of them were opposed to slavery and prior to them there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the egregious institution. Our nation's struggle with the civil rights of blacks was an unfortunate blemish on the country's history. Nevertheless, it was the premise that the Founders laid down about equality – about everyone being of equal worth – that inspired Martin Luther King, Jr. in his famous civil rights speech to argue, "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'"
My point is a simple one: the true meaning of equality is being turned into lunacy. And there is no better example of this fact than the Go Topless organization striving to achieve "women's rights to go topless...or striving to see that men's nipples remain equally private."
I'll tell you if Go Topless ever gets its way, I make the motion that since diamond's are a girl's best friend and a man's best friend is a dog, men henceforth forgo such expenditures for women, women always get a dog, or they come up with the loot for men too.
Please, give me a break!!!!!!
© Rev. Mark H. Creech
February 9, 2013
In my home state of North Carolina, legislation has been introduced making it illegal for women to fully bare their breasts in public. The bill was introduced by Representatives Rayne Brown (R-Lexington) and Tim Moffitt (R-Asheville), in response to constituents concerns about topless rallies promoted by a group called Go Topless, an organization that's fighting for the so-called right of women to expose their breasts without violating any indecent exposure laws. They've already held topless protests in Asheville, North Carolina.
The legislation wouldn't prohibit breast feeding in public. Its purpose is only meant to clarify something that is not clear in North Carolina's statutes – that public indecency includes fully exposed breasts and should be a misdemeanor.
There are a number of humorous reasons why the legislation should be approved. One, most women are against such nudity because women never like to go someplace where all the women are wearing the same thing. Second, if women are allowed to parade around topless, it would essentially end the practice of blind dating. Third, actresses in the theatre could never again guarantee they would have a dress rehearsal. And finally, it would put a lot of Peeping Toms out of business. And, the list goes on.
But don't mistake my light hearted approach to this matter for failing to take the issue seriously. This is important legislation. It should be supported and the lawmakers behind it ought to be commended. Still, there is an underlying issue, I believe, even greater than the need for the legislative initiative itself.
Interestingly, the President of Go Topless, Nadine Gary argued, "Our rallies are aimed at bringing attention to a serious matter of unconstitutional, unequal treatment...women are still persecuted or arrested for going topless, while men aren't...To uphold the constitution, Representative Moffitt should honor its references to equality...Instead, he's attempting to widen the inequality gap when he should be protecting women's rights to go topless in his state or striving to see that men's nipples remain equally private."
Gary's advocacy for bare breasts in the name of "equality" shows the ridiculous ends to which our culture has corrupted phrases like "all men are created equal" and "equal treatment under the law."
When the Founders spoke of equality in the Declaration of Independence, they didn't mean that everything we do should be of equal significance, or that we should erase the differences of the sexes ordered by nature's God. Their emphasis was on the dignity of mankind – that all men are of equal significance to God – that all are made in His image. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution essentially contends all people, regardless of station, whether rich or poor, whether man or woman, no matter their race, their God-given rights to life, liberty, and property should be zealously protected by the state.
Today, however, equal rights have come to mean something ludicrous – that women in the name of reproductive rights and equality with men should be able to destroy their unborn children – that marriage should be redefined to also include the homosexual – that wealth should be redistributed to equalize the plight of the impoverished – that children should be allowed the capacity of autonomous actions over their parents – that women should serve in combat positions – that tolerance should mean every truth claim is equally valid to its counterpart. This changes the traditional concept of equality into a modern absurdity.
Of course, historical revisionist will argue that the meaning of equality is something that has always been evolving in American society. They'll site how some Founders were slave owners and equal rights for blacks was a long time coming. But the fact of the matter is slavery was something imposed on the Founders 200 years before them. Most of them were opposed to slavery and prior to them there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the egregious institution. Our nation's struggle with the civil rights of blacks was an unfortunate blemish on the country's history. Nevertheless, it was the premise that the Founders laid down about equality – about everyone being of equal worth – that inspired Martin Luther King, Jr. in his famous civil rights speech to argue, "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'"
My point is a simple one: the true meaning of equality is being turned into lunacy. And there is no better example of this fact than the Go Topless organization striving to achieve "women's rights to go topless...or striving to see that men's nipples remain equally private."
I'll tell you if Go Topless ever gets its way, I make the motion that since diamond's are a girl's best friend and a man's best friend is a dog, men henceforth forgo such expenditures for women, women always get a dog, or they come up with the loot for men too.
Please, give me a break!!!!!!
© Rev. Mark H. Creech
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
