Re: Breasts, Brains and Headless Chickens

[Steve Wells <wellstep@turbonet.com>]

>Visionaries, City Council and Mayor Comstock, I have to agree with
Gregory Dickison that the religious argument regarding this issue needs
to be heard.  From what I can tell, that is the only argument that
has been stated so far.  Unfortunately, no one has really clarified
that.  This is the 3rd time I'm asking for someone to state the biblical
basis for the belief that breasts should not be exposed to public view.<

The only bible verses I can find that might apply are these:

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." --Deuteronomy 22:5

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." – 1 Timothy 2:9

"Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands …. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel." – 1 Peter 3:3

Oh, and then maybe Proverbs 11:22: "As a jewel of gold in a swine's snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion."

I hope that helps. Does anyone know of any others?
Steve Wells
 

Muscovites for Equal Rights wrote:

Visionaries, City Council and Mayor Comstock,
I have to agree with Gregory Dickison that the religious argument regarding
this issue needs to be heard.  From what I can tell, that is the only
argument that has been stated so far.  Unfortunately, no one has really
clarified that.  This is the 3rd time I'm asking for someone to state the
biblical basis for the belief that breasts should not be exposed to public
view.

It is also unfortunate that a law has been passed and no one is willing to
come forth and publically debate the neccesity of this law.  I can only
assume that is because we have chickens running around with their heads cut
off.  You know you have been called on the law you support.  You call us
names, think we are perverted and skirt our serious questions.  You know you
have no argument against:

This sexist law violates the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.  Similar
laws have been overturned by the courts.  This one likely will be challenged
in court, costing us taxpayers money to defend it.  This is a waste.  Our
city council could have passed a more reasonable law that wouldn't be a
target for a lawyer trying to make a name for him or herself.  New York's
topfree laws were shot down by the court.

This law sweeps onto private property.  All of us now violate the law if we
are naked in our own homes and open to public view.  This includes the cleft
of your buttucks and women, this includes your breasts.  The fine is up to
$500 and 6 months in jail.

This law bans certain bikinis and other apparel.  Boise's law that banned
mainstream attire was shot down by the court.  Our law tests the same
argument against the Boise law.

Police Officers now have an excuse to harrass women who may appear to be
breaking the law by showing too much of their breast.

The concept of restricting women from exposing their breasts in public view
to prevent the corruption of men is no different than the Taliban's extreme
restriction of making women cover themselves completely.  This becomes even
more apparant considering the main argument for this concept is religious.

There are not many city's in Idaho that have such an extreme law.  Even
Pullman's nudity ordinance is based on lewd behaviour, not apparel.

Our city council needs to be held accountable for passing such an
irresponsible law.  This is for the good of Moscow to insure that laws that
are passed are well thought out and don't violate our US Constitution.

Be it known that we are making an attempt to educate the public about this
law.  We made the Women's Rights Rally open to anyone who wanted to speak
and we are making the Civil Rights Celebration open to anyone who wants to
speak.  Let us hear your arguments for or against civil rights in general
and/or this law in particular.

Be it known that we have asked for someone to debate this law in public on
stage with us.  If no one takes us up on this challenge, we will have a mock
debate.  I will play the devil's advocate and debate someone who is against
the ordinance.  I will attempt to be as biased for the ordinance as
possible.  But since I don't really know all the arguments for it, I
probably won't do as fair a job as someone who sincerely feels this
ordinance is necesary for Moscow.

Muscovites for Equal Rights is organizing a Civil Rights Celebration to be
held in East City Park in Moscow on Saturday 9/7 from 11 to 7pm. The intent
of the Celebration is to recognize the freedoms of Americans and promote the
expansion of freedoms to those repressed. Equal rights to all will be a
theme, highlighted by the campaign to rescind Moscow's nudity ordinance.

Part of the Civil Rights Celebration will be devoted to educating the public
about Moscow's new nudity ordinance.  In order to provide even coverage, we
are challenging those who support the ordinance to a public debate.
An hour or so during the Celebration will be devoted to this debate.
Participants will appear on the stage in East City Park and will be
moderated by a neutral person.  Participants will follow time guidelines set
by the moderator.
So, we are looking for someone who wants to take this challenge.  Let the
public know why you think this ordinance is necessary for Moscow.
We are also looking for a moderator.
Please respond if interested.
Mark Rounds (folk), Lisa Simpson (folk), The Sauce (funk/ jazz fusion) and
Galactic Tofu Farmers (psycho-electric groove food) will provide music.
Speakers, games, skits, a fashion show featuring newly "illegal" attire, and
petitions to put the ordinance to a public vote will tie the Celebration
together.

You can walk with the Wild Thang, the Clearwater Country's own Dragon, from
the Farmers' Market at Friendship Square up to the park at around noon.

In July, Moscow's City Council approved Ordinance 2002-13, which makes it
illegal for a woman to expose her nipples, sides or bottoms of her breasts
to public view. Public view includes private property if a woman can be seen
from a public space. Many bathing suits, some sleeveless blouses, low cut
dresses, and other garments now violate the law. It also bans exposure of
the division between the buttocks for both sexes.
The fine is up to $500, or 6 months in jail.
MER believes the ordinance is sexist and unconstitutional and suppresses the
rights of women in order to prevent another person from feeling a certain
way.
MER is committed to upholding the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal
protection under the law for all citizens.  MER has started a petition drive
to put the ordinance to a public vote.
2300 signatures of registered voters in the city of Moscow must be collected
by September 24.
Call 883-7965 or email idahomer@hotmail.com for more information, to
co-sponsor as a business or group, or to help organize or be part of the
celebration.
Please forward and spread the word.
Garrett Clevenger

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com