,
nudity as a scapegoat for issues including litter and drug use that inevitably appear in high-use recreation areas without active management. 176. One of the best challenges faced by clothing-optional beaches is that their popularity, combined with their scarcity, leads to intensive use, which in turn battles with environmental and management concerns. This has been a source of problems at several beaches all over the nation, including Sandy Hook in New Jersey, and Cape Cod National Seashore, which shut its traditionally nude shore seemingly for environmental Rationales in the mid 1970s.272 177. The "secondary effects" of an actively managed nude beach have in real expertise proven to be less crime, less inappropriate conduct, no drug dealers, an increase in parking revenues, and a rise in business in the adjoining commercial area.273 178. Nudity has often been repressed for economic reasons, not because it was considered unethical. Bernard Rudofsky writes: "In the 1920s, in certain parts of Europe people used to bathe in public without feeling the demand for a unique clothing. At the height of summer the beaches on the Black Sea swarmed with bathers Who'd never seen a bathing suit except in papers and picture magazines; their vacation was one of untroubled simplicity. . . . The idyll came to an end a couple of years after when tourism rose its ugly head, and the demonstrations of foreign visitors led to making bathing suits compulsory." 274 The same thing has lately happened in the former East Germany, where traditionally nude beaches are now being confined to appease more conservative European tourists.275 179. We have to 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 have found out the Precise amount of justice and wrong which will be imposed upon them. . . . The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance 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 essentially decent, not Fundamentally impure or sinful. The human body was created by God, and God can create no evil. It's made in God's image, along with the image of God is entirely pure and good. 181. Genesis 1:31--God saw that everything, including naked Adam and Eve, was great. 182. Genesis 3:7--Many scholars interpret the wearing of fig leaves as a continuance and expansion of the original sin, not a positive moral reaction to it. Hugh Kilmer clarifies: "Guy needed to place his life within his own control instead of God's, so first he took the power of self determination (knowledge of good and bad). Next, finding his body was not within his control, he Commanded it artificially by hiding it. After he was expelled from heaven, he started to hunt and eat animals; afterward to gain complete control over other people, 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 born, God-given sense of shame associated with nakedness is contradicted by the existence of numerous indigenous societies in which nudity is the rule and also a sense of shame is totally absent, and by the shortage of shame felt by nude children. 185. Genesis 3:11--It was disobedience that came between Adam and Eve and God, not nakedness. The scriptures themselves address Adam and Eve's nudity as an incidental problem. Robert Bahr observes that "when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they developed ashamed of what they had done and tried to hide themselves from God, who wasn't the least bit concerned with their nakedness but was mightily unhappy with their disobedience." 279 Herb Seal notes that God supplied a covering by slaying an innocent animal: 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 clothes. God loved and cared for them even after they had sinned. https://arorrohe1984.wordpress.com/2016/12/21/meant-they-did-not-look-as-important-and-were-put-on-the-back-burner-i-still/ . To assume that because God made garments He was condemning nudity makes as much sense as Reasoning 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 dad, by calling attention to Noah's state, and making light of it. The shame of Noah's "nakedness" was considerably more than just being undressed. It absolutely was his dehumanized, drunken stupor that was black. Ham's violation wasn't only seeing his dad in this shameful state, but