INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.

[BlueTrain]

I think there is a certain value in nudity, at least sometimes, and worship means assigning worth to something. But I try not to overthink these things.

[Peter S]

While the naked lifestyle can, like many other activities, be pursued with a religious-like fervour, I don't think such things qualify as a religion in their own right. Though I suppose if we think of naturists as "sun worshippers" the religious definition can be applied, even expanded to be part of Atenism (the ancient Egyptian term for sun worship, a bona fide religion back then, apparently).

[BlueTrain]

In my definitions, naturists are nature worshipers; the nudists are, or were, sun worshipers. The national organization was even called the American Sunbathing Society. But I hesitate to use the term "lifestyle" as applied to my life.

[jbeegoode]

Naturism may not be a good label for my religion, but it is most certainly an important meaningful, integral piece of my spirituality. My spirituality has all of the importance of religion.

Mindfulness is key in many a practice, like some Hindu and certainly Buddhist teachings. For me, I know of no other better practice of mindfulness than nudity and then in nature, exploring myself as a nature being. It cues me up to the practices that lead to a higher consciousness. If the goal is to get closer to say God, to identify, to know oneself as a piece of God, as many do, then what better way to practice being in the moment, being here in the now. How better, in my sense, to understand what is God and draw closer and to know better devotion and belief. 

So, the subjugation of my naturism, by law, by dominate social mores, is the repression of my religious expression in a very  fundamental way.

My family roots are people who came here to escape religious oppression. Here I sit in religious/spiritual oppression with a constitution installed that is supposed to protect, but doing so, my religion, my spirituality, my sense and devotion.
Jbee

[Greenbare Woods]

My family roots are people who came here to escape religious oppression. Here I sit in religious/spiritual oppression with a constitution installed that is supposed to protect, but doing so, my religion, my spirituality, my sense and devotion.
Jbee

I have that problem too.   I fear going naked in town even though it is "technically" legal to do so because oppression is omnipresent. 

Bob

[eyesup]

I have often pondered the same scripture John. The scripture speaks of a simpler life that is appealing. I’ve have wondered what He would think of our activities. The council about not worrying is relevant still, yet it permeates every aspect of our life.

The top down structure in organized religion is still active and can be just as oppressive.
Old habits die hard. 

Duane

[BlueTrain]

I agree. It's really, really hard to love your neighbor, not to steal, not to lie, not to kill and so on.

[nuduke]

[font=]Naturism may not be a good label for my religion, but it is most certainly an important meaningful, integral piece of my spirituality. My spirituality has all of the importance of religion.[/font]

Now that's the distinction.  Spirituality. 
Spirituality does not have to be a religious thing (but religion has to be spiritual).  Naturism is just one of the spiritual things. 
Explain your last sentence of the quote, please, Jbee. 


Anticipating your reply, I think it is right to say that the positive feedback we get spiritually from being naked, particularly in nature, leads us to a virtuous cycle of reinforcement whilst naked and therefore seeking out to be naked ever more often to uplift (or whatever) the spirit.  Thus the repeated seeking to be naked I guess could be analogous to a religion.


I repotted some plants in our backyard yesterday and although it is full-on autumn in the UK, the sun was out and the air was dry, cool and crisp so I doffed my overalls and garden clogs and did the job naked.  Not having had a prolonged time naked outdoors in a few weeks, I felt my spirits rise and I felt good I was able to do that job naked.  After I went in the house and had to wear something for wifey, I was kept spiritually warm by the afterglow of my time naked.  Mind you, as time went on outside at only about 45 deg F I was getting a tad uncomfortable.  So I put my shoes on!   That does help maintain the chill endurance I find.   


John

[jbeegoode]

[font=]Naturism may not be a good label for my religion, but it is most certainly an important meaningful, integral piece of my spirituality. My spirituality has all of the importance of religion.[/font]

Now that's the distinction.  Spirituality. 
Spirituality does not have to be a religious thing (but religion has to be spiritual).  Naturism is just one of the spiritual things. 
Explain your last sentence of the quote, please, Jbee....

John

I went on to explain the sentence in teh next paragraph,"Mindfulness is key in many a practice, like some Hindu and certainly Buddhist teachings. For me, I know of no other better practice of mindfulness than nudity and then in nature, exploring myself as a nature being. It cues me up to the practices that lead to a higher consciousness. If the goal is to get closer to say God, to identify, to know oneself as a piece of God, as many do, then what better way to practice being in the moment, being here in the now. How better, in my sense, to understand what is God and draw closer and to know better devotion and belief.

So, the subjugation of my naturism, by law, by dominate social mores, is the repression of my religious expression in a very  fundamental way."

There is in this country for many to think that organized religion, religion recognized by the tax codes, are what is solely protected by law and the only legitimate. The founders were often not of that ilk, particularly the ones who wrote, defended and inserted the 1st Amendment into the Bill of Rights to protect us from democratic abuses. Spirituality is protected just as much as religions. They are therefore described as just as important. Also many recognized religions share my sense of it all, ie. my spirituality.
Jbee

[BlueTrain]

I'm not so sure about that. But you first have to put yourself in an 18th century context, not so easy to do. Religious groups who came here explicitly for religious freedom, chief among other reasons, relished the opportunity to establish the own community with their own rules, which included one and only one (the one true) church. That's the way it was where they had come from but they were dissenters there. Other colonies less religiously oriented were still the same, as far as things could be controlled. That was essentially the state of things until after the constitution was ratified. After that, churches, that is, organized churches, were no longer what might be called a branch of the government. Churches were at loose ends for several years and had to find themselves, in a manner of speaking.

In some places that had more significance than it did in others. In fact, in some newly settled regions, there was a lack of ordained clergy and congregations were sometimes organized well before they could find a pastor. But one should not overstate the power of religion in colonial America or in the new United States. The real power in any community was with a small number of relatively wealthy individuals, mostly the same as now, and they belonged to the right church (there probably being only one anyway), paid most of the taxes themselves and ran things both before and after the revolution. But there might have been an even more important reason for the establishment clause.

The 17th century had been a time of religious wars in Europe and Britain and they had been very destructive. Some migrations to the New World, at least in North America, had been in response to the continual wars at home. That was the case with some of my ancestors who arrived in the mid-17th century, though there were other good reasons, too. Those who wrote the constitution were familiar with recent history and they didn't want this country to go through that.

[jbeegoode]

I know that I've got paperwork for an excommunication of seven brothers and sisters of my family tree who married outside of the church in the 17th century and this was a group of some kind of Quakers escaping persecution in Europe. Yes, many did establish religious realms and fell into intolerance after escaping that shadow in Europe. The Puritans are notable examples of this in literature. Some of the northern colonies were out to "establish" the whole colony. One of the Adam's was adamant about Mass in Massachusetts.

The key people who wrote and promoted that Bill of Rights were Deist, and in a frame of mind to be less structured and more individual in the quest for a Godly understanding and practice.

The Supreme Court has established that was the intent, most radically the right to not believe. So we are geared to be secular in government practice. Back in the 18th century, we were in principle looking for the pursuit of happiness and that is grounds for letting spiritual  diversity do what it needs to do.

So, whether I'm walking around naked as a sadhu renunciate for Shiva, or sitting in a cave naked in simplicity, or training myself in the practice of awareness to understand the moment and the nature of God, or just standing naked in the bliss of infinity and the miracle, or skyclad in ritual, I should be legal. I'm not hurting anyone.
Jbee

[Peter S]

Amen to that, brother

[rrfalcon]

The First Amendment's phrasing regarding religion is a bit odd until you look at the situation the Founding Fathers found themselves in.  The wording is "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion" and not something simpler like "Congress shall not establish a national religion". That obviously prevents Congress from establishing a national religion, but it also prevents Congress from outlawing any religion, or disestablishing an existing established religion.  It was phrased this way because several states did have official state religions, with all state residents taxed to support that religion. Those states wouldn't have supported the Constitution if there was a possibility that the majority of states without established religions could outlaw it for the states that did.

[BlueTrain]

Some European countries still have established churches. In reality, it is churches that are or are not established, not the religion. Most religious wars have been between people of the same religion but of different sects. And some religious wars were not about religion anyway. So it could be said that true religious freedom, like privacy, is a modern day concept. But the constitution was ratified without the amendments.

There were elements of the newly established republic that to our enlightened minds, seem strange, slavery being the one most noted these days. By the time of the Civil War, a few states had a majority slave population. There were those who apparently could not bear criticism and even made it illegal to criticize the federal government. Well, maybe those things don't seem that strange to a lot of people today after all.

[jbeegoode]

We must look at the full picture, not just the establishment clause, something that I found the last time I researched and pondered this issue.
Jbee