JBEE MAKES A CONFESSION!
I think that I began thinking about this when my spiritual practice began to conflict with those neighbors threats from next door. I had been doing consciousness altering sadhanas, running off to India to learn more, studying psychology, energy, molecular biology, etc. One sadhana that I was taught, was to spend time focused on just the task at hand, several times each day. The idea is to bring habitual focus on the here and now, to bring heighten awareness in the presence, which quiets the mind, brings on a more natural state, and a detachment. It is a form of meditation, which has been shown to create a neuro-biological shift, especially when coupled with other practices. This, or similar to that, is a form of sadhana going back millennia in India. It is a sacred practice. So, I had been doing this with other practices with very good, even amazing results. Then, I began to notice this in my daily nudity. For example, I began to just walk barefoot all over, focused on what is, across the bedrock surface out back, sometimes for hours. I would sit naked in the wind and fall into altered states which would affect me past that time sitting. The more I did this the better result, the deeper the connection, the quieter the mind, etc. There was more, I'm not preaching or suggesting the practice here, so it won't get explained. It applied to naturism in high mountains, deserts, connection with what one might call the divine presence.
When doing this, I had had to limit my movement, always concerned with someone causing legal trouble. For a while, the threat gave me more awareness, but then became more of a distraction to the state of consciousness. Then BANG! Those neighbors made it feel dangerous. I realized that the threat of the law was definitively interfering with my sacred spiritual sadhana, a conflict. That is when I began to ponder this legal question. I realized that the state was interfering with my inalienable rights in profound ways. Not just imposing an unjustified expression of an old more founded in another man's religion and associated insecurities, but my freedom to exercise with my connection with what is sacred. I am certain that I have a valid point, my 1st Amendment Rights are being denied. I ponder if a judgement can be made to protect my right to this. Now, it is more than the rights to my own body, opposed to just those silly, yet damaging laws of the clothing obsessed world, or the perfectly ludicrous notion that the vision of a natural human form is damaging to a child, or anyone.
I wonder how anyone might go about accomplishing the correction of the laws. I ponder if I would be up for such a thing. Is it feasible, and practical? So, this legal stuff popped up and I thought what the heck, "Why keep all of this pondering fun to myself?" Let's share. Maybe somebody else can suggest that I'm crazy, or maybe someone has a fresh idea as how to pursue some liberation of the deep spiritual to all the way to simply enjoying sunshine sitting on a rock next to a brook.
So, assuming that my sense of spirituality is not anyone else’s here, but it appears to be valid sincere path for Jbee, and probably others. Also, assuming that there is a shared belief and support of the right of everyone to follow a personal spiritual practice as they understand it. How might this be implemented? Is it practical, or doable when coupled with the issues contained in that positive ruling on topfree equality and the states burden to prove that nudity is damaging? Would a positive ruling be a strong step to establish precedent for the rest of the naturist to get their interests through the courts?
Who, with sincere conviction, would come out in public, submit to arrest, bare the time and stress of court, be publicly labeled as the naked guy, etc. probably consuming a great deal of time, effort, freedom and life to accomplish this, and then there’s the monetary issues?
Jbee
I haven’t seen much evidence that people have grasped that naturism can be a powerful spiritual experience and that it may be protected as free exercise. The experience of naturism is different and in different degrees for every body. Does it mean that the establishment clause means no interference in its definition by the state, so that in a wood alone is a religious act, as much as sitting in a group in a cathedral? Does the “exercise clause guarantee” override worship in a nude state, and not hidden? It is one thing to have to hide and limit practice, another do it in public as the purpose. In other words minding your own business in public, opposed to making the public pawns in your own game. Generally, all I see is people with this concept of a church or temple, people gathered, faith in a belief, a god of some type and an authority for guidance, deciding the perspective of the issue. That isn’t fair to the rest of us. It doesn’t include the individual, but only the organizations and those religions with leaders, not to say that that is a bad thing.
I think that people have a right to pursue what they need to without interference, when it does no harm.
