Re: Breasts, Brains and Headless Chickens

[Steve Wells <wellstep@turbonet.com>]

Doug Jones wrote:

>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.<

I hope that my previous post did not give the impression that I am in favor or the ordinance. I am not. I was only trying to point out some verses in the bible that might be relevant.

I missed a few, though. So I thought I'd list them as well.

Here are a couple that may relate to the Goddess idea:

"His breasts are full of milk…." -- Job 21:24
"Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings." -- Isaiah 60:16

Here are a few in praise of the female breast:

"Let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love." -- Proverbs 5:19
"He shall lie all night betwixt my breasts." -- Song of Solomon 1:13
"Thy two breasts [are] like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies." -- Song of Solomon 4:4
"Thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine…." -- Song of Solomon 7:8
"We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts ….." -- Song of Solomon 8:8
"I [am] a wall, and my breasts like towers…." -- Song of Solomon 8:10

And here's one that's hard to classify:

"Thou shalt  … pluck off thine own breasts: for I have spoken [it], saith  the Lord GOD." -- Ezekiel 23:34

I am glad to see, though, that supporters of the initiative are not basing their support on the bible. Because doing so would require (among many other unpleasant things) the execution of witches (Ex.22:18), homosexuals (Lev.20:13), disobedient children (Dt.21:18-21), Sabbath breakers (Ex.31:14), and nonbelievers (Dt.13:6-10).

Thank God, the Goddess, and the city council that Moscow city ordinances are not based on the bible. Let's keep it that way.
 
 

Doug Jones wrote:

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