nudity as a scapegoat for issues including litter and drug use that necessarily appear in high-use recreation areas

without active management.
176. One of the greatest challenges confronted by clothing-optional beaches is that their popularity, joined
with their deficiency, leads to intensive use, which in turn battles with environmental and management concerns.
This has been a source of issues at several beaches across the nation, including Sandy Hook in New
Jersey, and Cape Cod National Seashore, which closed its traditionally nude beach ostensibly for environmental
reasons in the mid 1970s.272
177. The “secondary effects” of an actively managed nude beach have in real experience proven to be
less crime, less inappropriate behavior, no drug dealers, an increase in parking revenues, and a rise in company
in the adjoining commercial area.273
178. Nudity has frequently been repressed for financial reasons, not because it was considered immoral.
Bernard Rudofsky writes: “In the 1920s, in certain parts of Europe folks used to bathe in public without
feeling the requirement for a unique apparel. At the peak of summer the beaches on the Black Sea swarmed with bathers
Who’d never seen a bathing suit except in newspapers and graphic magazines; their holiday was one of untroubled
simplicity. . . . The idyll came to an end a couple of years later when tourism reared its ugly head, as well as the protests of
foreign visitors led to making bathing suits compulsory.” 274 The same thing has recently happened in the former
East Germany, where traditionally nude shores are now being confined to appease more conservative European
tourists.275
179. We must never forget that for any independence that is lost, we bear partial responsibility for letting it be
lost.

In the words of Frederick Douglass: “Find out just what people will submit to and you’ve found out the
Precise quantity of justice and wrong which will be inflicted upon them. . . . The limits of tyrants are prescribed by naturism freedom of those who they oppress.” 276
Christianity supports Naturism.277
180. Genesis 1:27–The (naked) human body, created by God, in God’s own image, is fundamentally adequate, not
Naturally impure or sinful. The human body was made by God, and God can create no evil. It’s made in God’s
Picture, along with the image of God is wholly pure and good.
181. Genesis 1:31–God saw that everything, including naked Adam and Eve, was good.
182. Genesis 3:7–Many scholars interpret the wearing of fig leaves as a continuance and growth of the
original sin, not a favorable moral reaction to it.
Hugh Kilmer describes: “Guy wanted to put his life within his own control instead of God’s, so first he took
the power of self-determination (knowledge of good and evil). Next, finding his body was not within his control, he
controlled it unnaturally by concealing it. After he was expelled from heaven, he started to hunt and eat animals; subsequently to
gain complete control over others, by killing them (the story of Cain and Abel).” 278
183. Genesis 3:10–Many scholars believe that Adam and Eve’s sense of shame came not from their
nakedness, which God had created and called good, but from their knowledge of having disobeyed God.
184. An inherent, God-given sense of shame related to nakedness is contradicted by the existence of
numerous indigenous societies in which nudity is the rule as well as a sense of shame is totally absent, and by http://modestperson.com/views/we-are-interested-in-joining-a-local-nudist-resort.php of
shame felt by naked children.
185. Genesis 3:11–It was disobedience that arrived between Adam and Eve and God, not nakedness. The
scriptures themselves treat Adam and Eve’s nudity as an incidental issue.
Robert Bahr notes that “when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they grew embarrassed of what they had done
and tried to conceal themselves from God, who was not the least bit concerned with their nakedness but was
mightily unhappy with their disobedience.” 279 Herb Seal notes that God provided a covering by slaying an
innocent creature: the first prototype of the innocent one slain to behave as a “covering” for sinners.280
186. Genesis 3:21–God made garments of skins for Adam, but the Bible doesn’t say the state of
nakedness is being condemned. Due to the Fall, Adam and Eve were no longer in Eden and were thus subject to
the varieties of weather and climate, and God knew they’d desire clothing. God loved and cared for them even
after they’d sinned.
187. To presume that because God made garments He was condemning nudity makes as much sense as
concluding that because God made clouds which blot out the sun He was condemning sunlight.
188. Genesis 9:22-24–Noah was both drunk and naked, but Ham was the one who was cursed–when he
dishonored his father, by calling attention to Noah’s state, and making light of it.
The shame of Noah’s “nakedness” was considerably more than simply being undressed. It was his dehumanized,
drunken stupor which was black. Ham’s offense wasn’t only seeing his father in this black state, but

Advertisements