Nudism and the Constitution; Is it a God Given Right? — General Discussion on True Nudists

DesertRatOriginal Poster

Jun 26, 2011

Here's an interesting constitutional issue to ponder. In the Declaration of Independence, it states tha all men have certain unalienable, God given rights. These include, among others, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The US Constitution sets up the mechinism for enforcing these rights. Could it be argued that nudism is a means by which people pursue happiness? In an often stated re-wording of a court decision: One person's rights end at another person's nose. Is nudism so offensive that it violates the rights of a person who sees the nudist? I believe that this might make an interesting case for the courts. The question is; Who has the time and money necessary to take this through the court system? On a side note, the plaintiff in this suit will for ever have his name linked to this case.

ReactReplySubscribe

Replies

CO
Curt, or Cowboy
Jun 26, 2011
Of course, I am not a judge, nor Supreme Court justice, even if I've played one on TV or elsewhere.....
The Declaration elaborates the right to *pursue* happiness, but not to achieve that end, necessarily.
I could argue that nudism is achieving happiness, and that merely seeking a resort is the pursuit.
Yes, some find the unclothed human body so offensive they have seen fit to desecrate some of the greatest paintings throughout history with fig leaves, and such, and so apparently their rights have ( somehow ) been violated by the mere depiction of the human body.
Additionally, some find the sight of a woman *at all* so offensive as to require them to wear the buqua anywhere outside of their own home.
Go figure !
To answer the question, I've neither the time money, nor an inclination strong enough to take it as far as it could go, and a serious aversion to the potential ramifications.
ReactReply
DE
DesertRatOriginal Poster
Jun 26, 2011
Deleted entry.
ReactReply
GA
gabare
Jun 26, 2011
well if you look at the people running our government they don't believe much of the constitution or what your or my rights are and pretty much have a law to tell you what to eat, drink and how often we can flush the toilet. somewhere along the way we have gotten away from that important document and how much freedom it guaranteed us.
ReactReply
DE
DesertRatOriginal Poster
Jun 30, 2011
I thought that we'd get a lot of discussion on this subject or is it just too deep of an issue? I believe that it may truly be an innovative concept.
ReactReply
CO
Curt, or Cowboy
Jun 30, 2011
[quote]I'm not sure if I believe there is any such thing as a God Given right... Most of the rights we have now as citizens in our respective countries are the result of struggle, have been hard earned and frequently paid for with large scale human sacrifice. [/quote] Too many people assume legal privilage to be a right. The declaration mentions three inalienable, God given, rights. Life. You were born alive. This is assumed to be from God, and since you were not born already dead, is enumerated as a right to continue living. Liberty. You wre born with a brain, and able to function ( eat, sleep, etc. ) without external aid or dependance on any other organizm or device, and so can not have such imposed by law or whim of some government. Pursuit of happiness. We ( all living animals ) instinctively seek comfort. None of these three are confered by law, but are a consequence of being, so by extension are God given rights. One does not seek comfort *because* government allows, or conveys such emotion, but in spite of any government or government action. The same can be said of life, and liberty. Since the Founders were deeply religious men, believing these to be of and or from God, these are God given rights, not rights or priviledge given by government, or so is my understanding.
ReactReply
CO
Curt, or Cowboy
Jun 30, 2011
While I like the logic, I can see where it could set a dangerous precedent, such as driving drunk makes me happy.
ReactReply
DE
DesertRatOriginal Poster
Jul 1, 2011
[quote]While I like the logic, I can see where it could set a dangerous precedent, such as driving drunk makes me happy.[/quote] When a person is exercising his rights, he may not intrude upon the rights of another individual. If happiness to one person is getting drunk at home that is fine. If that person chooses to drive drunk, he is endangering the life of another person. He may not, in excercising his rights, deprive another person of their right to live.
ReactReply
RE
renebbare
Jul 1, 2011
The 1st problem here is that rights are not God given. In fact God has little to give us in terms of our freedoms.
Our fellow men give us our freedoms - and they take them away!
ReactReply