Hahaha....I'll tell you why! And you thought this was a rhetorical amusing question which in fact begs itself! No such luck. I'm going to try to make this quick. I'll probably fail. I have edited this article in response to a well intentioned and poorly executed defense by Unordained.
I looked for articles online that attempted to prove that nudity was wrong. All I got was defenses for nudism based on bad logic applied to good scripture verses. All these tell me is that there's a bunch of nude guys putting up web pages. If you want to see more of it, go read Unordained's first draft response...it is very similar in logic but it includes a "we don't give a crap about you anyways" defense.
I'm going to attempt to show why I believe people should where clothes...and show where I think people should wear them.
Biases: the Biblical perspective
I like it when those who write or speak on television acknowledge their biases. So I'll acknowledge mine. I'm a fiscally undecideded (since it is arbitrary), morally conservative (since it isn't) "Bible believing" Christian. So..I suppose that means you can close this box and laugh at me when I get upset about something. :) You should also take into account that I am writing to pursuade..so I'm trying to take into account the reader's biases (in all their wonderful, colorful forms).
Why is this Important?
There's a lot of people that want to be allowed to wear less clothing. There are a lot of people that want to see others in less clothing. There are lots of people who don't want their children exposed to too much exposure of "sexual" body parts....and a few of those don't want that kind of exposure to exposure themseles (like me). I believe this article is important because of the complete lack of conservative opinion that I find on the subject online. I hope I do a good job. The issue is also important for an odd reason I think should be acknowledged. If a conservative offends a liberal it seems to me it can be a big deal. It's our self appointed job to make rules into laws. Sometimes that hurts people. If a liberal offends a conservative....it's funny. Conservatives have to spell everything out..which is also funny. So...some of you will have evidence to back your viewpoints. Others of you will have another opportunity to laugh at someone. So kick back and enjoy....but please read carefully.
This is a moral issue. The question has been asked "Why does anyone care." I wish to answer this question. I can tell you why a Muslim would care, but I cannot defend it and I don't think you need me to tell you why. Some of you care about offending Muslims at the super bowl, some of you don't. I can however, explain and defend in part, the common Christian perspective...and this after a lengthy discussion with Unordained...and a pretty hefty bit of me getting my butt kicked since I was inadequately defended. So here are the Biblical Issues.
Is modesty an issue?
1 timothy 2:9 and 1 corinthians 12:23, particularly the latter, help to explain why modesty is an issue to Christians. The latter says (in NIV) "are unpresentable" in reference to certain body parts. We are not sure which body parts this references, but it's safe to say that it is possible that some body parts are unpresentable. For some of you this is enough. Others need more proof. Now things get a little more vague. The Bible presents us with a concept of "Questionable Issues." Corinthians 8-10 should help explain this. It begins by saying that there are many issues with which Christians disagree, but for which God has not given us a command. The initial conclusion is "don't argue, quietly do as you see fit but don't offend your brothers." However, by Chapter 10, the conclusion has gone a step further. Paul concludes that he'll put forth a lot of energy in order to avoid making his brothers stumble. 1 Corinthians 8:13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble. So, there is an issue regarding conscience, not to cause other brothers to stumble.
New Feature Added! More Headings! More Paragraphs! The Lust Issue
The other issue, (the stronger one, the one you shouldn't ignore) is one of lust and must be divided by case, whether man or woman. A man therefore, must avoid making women (who are not his wife) lust after him where possible and a woman must make efforts to avoid making men (who are not her husband) lust after her. This might vary by culture, but one should be careful not to offend others. This was obviously not what Janet Jackson did during the Super Bowl. Am I being clear enough for you? So. Go do as you please with a greater understanding of why we get pissed about it.
The Self Contradiction innate in the Moral Relativist Opposition
The moral relativist might argue that modesty is a cultural issue. This is a very effective defense for Nudist cultures which are "Bible believing" ones in which men and women never lust after one another. List them for me. :) That is if this is indeed "merely" a cultural issue
However, given that our culture, nationally is, by and large, offended by having this kind of thing done in front of children, Janet Jackson made a mistake. You don't see an uproar about stuff showed after dark on HBO do you? That's because most of the Christians are (or should be) trying to tend to our own..we're not going to take you to Sunday School by force. The Bible, I believe, would take this a step further and say "if you care about offending the Christians, don't offend the Christians on a forum they are likely to be experiencing." Keep it to MTV and HBO k? You don't need a disclaimer over there: you know it's crap already. :)
The Logical Problem in the "That Doesn't Have to Mean That" Argument
I looked over a few arguments for nudism. They are incomplete by and large because they are busy denying poor Biblical arguments. It should first be noted that one cannot prove a thing by disproving a thing in a realm where it is not Black and White but Grey. That would be a false dilemma. There's a lot of room between Islam and Nudism. So debunking bad Islamic or bad Christian arguments is not sufficient to prove Nudism is okay with God. In fact, the scriptural burden of proof is this: One must analyse the entire scripture..every verse..every book. One must show either that the bible overall condones nudism (in general. Adam and Eve were married..remember that...I'm pretty sure this cannot be done) or that every verse in the Bible fails to show that Nudism is wrong. I've shown above that this cannot be done.
So please. Stop with the arrogance people. This isn't hard. I know it's fun to offend the prudish Christians and then laugh about it. In fact, I'm probably not going to convince any of you to try. But I have to try. Please?
I guess that's a no.
For now, I think I've accomplished my goals. Please. Not in front of the Christians okay? Laugh if you want. Just don't cram your beliefs down our throat if you expect us to do the same favor for you.
Response to Unordained
Unordained evidently browsed my article instead of really reading it. He confronts my weakest point, that being goodwill and makes my point for me by using "the f word" in an oversimplified argument regarding disclaimers.
Half of your article dwells on my former poor arguments and poor understanding. Most of the other half deals with "Offended!" We know, Unordained, that people like you care more about your own free speech then they do about being offensive. Your article makes one of two things clear. Either you were not making an effort not to offend, or you are so poor at it that it looks like you weren't trying. I knew my request would fall on deaf ears but I felt obliged to try. I'm silly like that: that's why I post on this board. If you feel more comfortable with it, chalk this paragraph up to a logical fallacy of personal attack and ignore the fact that logic can be applied well to attack a person's actions.
Furthermore, your argument regarding turning my TV off and never going outside actually illustrates the problems that uncaring and offensive people create for others. To illustrate: One person throws a can on the sidewalk. They don't care. Besides, how much damage did that can do to the environment? I mean, honestly, can we objectively say that the can is bad? That's why people like me have to pick up other people's garbage: because those people don't give a crap. Similarly, some people pollute the airwaves, the internet, the air, and every medium they touch with their presence. Yes, free speech gives them that right. But it creates a problem for those of us who want a "clean" (clean is always subjective) environment. We get to clean it up. Or we could try to respect each other.
My strongest point is that of lust. It is, as of yet, unconfronted. Probably too, unread despite my many bold tags. Perhaps I need more paragraph marks and headings to make my article even easier to skim and ignore. I understand completely that a very large number of people don't give a crap what the Bible says just like I don't care what the Koran says. However, I do try not to offend Muslims. My objective with this article was to show why we care. I'm not trying to convince you to care too.
Let there be Crap
Unordained Writes: "It all comes down to political correctness. That's one reason I've been terribly amused by Ensis' position: stereotypically, the touchy-feely liberal should be all about offending no one, while the conservative should be laughing at political correctness. It seems that at least today, free speech is more important for the liberal in me than not being offended."
Nice. Lets see....straw man? No, you'll have to slice finer than that. Yes, I like to laugh at political correctness when it is out of hand. But I also like to laugh at drawing moral lines where they should not be. Here's a great one. A Baptist preacher and a Catholic priest are on an airplane. The plane takes off and the flight attendants begin serving drinks. When the flight attendants get to the minister's row, the priest orders a glass of wine. The preacher says "Ahem....no thanks. I don't drink." The flight attendant moves on and the priest turns to the preacher and says "You know, Jesus created wine for others to drink." The preacher replies "Yeah and I would have liked him a whole lot better if he hadn't." For those that aren't reading carefully, the joke has nothing to do with two prudes trying to analyze an ancient book which is no longer relevant to see if they can determine moral values from it. Ahhhh, now you get it.
No Unordained, everyone, both liberals and conservatives should avoid idealistic extremes where they are unwarranted, and they should also avoid offending. To choose free speech over being offensive without reason might be to fail on both counts.
If you want to assign jobs for conservative and liberal, I'll help you. Conservatives are "good for" drawing lines in the sand. Conservatives are good for protecting Freedom from Evil. Liberals are good for blurring those lines and striking them down. Liberals are good for protecting Freedom from Conservatives. :) Believe it or not, that isn't just funny, it's also true. Conservatives and liberals alike generally have good intentions. We both want Freedom. Conservatives are afraid of evil people abusing their power. That's why they are pro-defense, anti-income redistribution and typically anti-abortion. Liberals are afraid of the Injustices of real life and afraid of Conservatives treading people down with their "moral high ground." That's why they are pro-income redistribution (health care, and program for the poor), pro abortion, and against drawing arbitrary moral lines which can hurt people. Ethic of Justice for Conservatives: People should get what they deserve. Ethic of Mercy for Liberals: some people deserve more than they get.
Unordained writes: "Free speech, generally, argues that you're welcome to say whatever you like, with no guarantee that anyone is watching or listening. The flip-side of this is that no matter what you say, people can ignore you -- in fact, they choose to listen to what you have to say. If they're offended, it's their own fault."
I disagree. Free speech, as in, the Constitutional provision for it, means something lawful, not something social. You cannot be prosecuted in general for voicing your opinion. There are limits to this. No shouting fire in a crowded building. No donating money to terrorist groups. Free speech is like the right to bear arms. Yes, you have a right to say pretty much what you want. Yes, you have a right to own a gun. Does that mean you have a right to offend people with what you say? Yeah pretty much. Gotcha! Does it mean that this is a good idea? No. Does freedom to own a gun mean you have a right to threaten people with your gun? No. Both of these freedoms come with responsibility. Pissing on someone is probably not a crime, but it is also not very polite. It sure makes a statement though. Why don't you go try it Unordained.