RE: Breasts, Brains and Headless Chickens

["Doug Jones" <credenda@moscow.com>]

Garrett Clevenger wrote: 

> I have to agree . . .  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.
> 

I think you can't remember a biblical argument in favor of the ordinance
because none has been given. I could be wrong, but (before Steve Wells's
recent attempt) I haven't seen such an argument appearing on this list.
Proponents of the ordinance (I'm not one of them) have used typical,
mainstream, middle-class, common decency appeals. Opponents have often
read these common sense appeals as "religious" or "biblical" arguments
pressed by some really organized Taliban but that's just local fantasy
in need of a coherent enemy. 

In fact, the only "religious" argument raised in the topless debate has
been Garrett Clevenger's, when, early on, he invoked the Goddess as a
basis for local policy: (June 27) "Please remember: our first instinct
is to suckle the breast, the giver of milk.  Without this gift from
Goddess, we would not survive. . . . Men need to get over their
breast-envy and realize there is nothing evil about being topless." 

You make it very clear that your views about equality flow out of your
religious devotion to the Goddess. Good for you. When you hold the
"debate," please be sure to be forthright about your desire to impose
those particular religious views on the local community. 

Doug Jones