Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum
June 19, 2013, 07:53:AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The man still needs help!
 
   Fish Eaters    Forum Index   Forum Rules   Help Calendar Members Chat Room   Who's Chatting   Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
 
Author Topic: Hasidic Enclave gets it on modesty  (Read 7933 times)
JoeVoxxPop
Member

Gender: Male
Posts: 10,372



« Reply #10 on: September 02, 2010, 09:54:AM »

Quote from: voxpopulisuxx
God has established within Christian culture and who borrow from Christian Culture a sense of propriety that is to a large degree recognised universaly in that culture.

How do we know this (i.e.: vague ideas about propriety) is from God as opposed to the natural development of cultural quirks?

In light of the above quote, how then do we explain the rise of social nudism in historically Christian areas of the world (e.g.: France, America, and most outstandingly, Germany)?
I explain it the same way abortion and homosodomy rights evil and sin.
As to how I know these concepts is because of the Churchs perrenial teachings and actions in tge area of modesty and dress.
Logged
Cyriacus
Member

Personality type: Bilious and Bloody
Posts: 984



« Reply #11 on: September 02, 2010, 10:30:AM »

Quote from: voxpopulisuxx
God has established within Christian culture and who borrow from Christian Culture a sense of propriety that is to a large degree recognised universaly in that culture.

How do we know this (i.e.: vague ideas about propriety) is from God as opposed to the natural development of cultural quirks?

In light of the above quote, how then do we explain the rise of social nudism in historically Christian areas of the world (e.g.: France, America, and most outstandingly, Germany)?

FKK has never been so prevalent in America as certain parts of Europe. I really think this may be due, in part, to the different cultural receptions of the Enlightenment, especially the conception of primordial man seen in the philosophical anthropology of Rousseau's Second Discourse, and its interpretation by readers as idealizing the wild, naked, pre-governmental noble savage, anticipating Romanticism.

In both cases, there was a recoiling from hierarchy and traditional culture, but in America it has largely been limited to a Lockean revolution with reference to the political order, certainly because of the national project of constructing a new one. Pre-social contract man in his natural state in Locke's philosophy does not look so bizarre; the natural law is there, including property, but everyone is individually troubled and burdened with its preservation and protection.

Popular anti-Catholic biases and deism aside, the sort of morally base revolutionary impulse in such a thing as French anti-clericalism has no analogue in the historical American character; Americans have never so much tried to destroy an old order as to create new one, preserving the mores and habits already in place.

Sorry for the detour and disorganization. My basic point is that FKK and "social nudity" are profoundly anti-Christian, products of a conscious abandonment of traditional and rational habits, done for the sake of liberation in utopian schemes to "immanentize the eschaton," to borrow a phrase from Voegelin. America, while by no means innocent, has experienced less drastic symptoms by appropriating the revolutionary impulse within a political framework, defining and limiting it.
Logged
Exilenomore
Member

Gender: Male
Location: Belgium
Posts: 330


Munda cor meum


« Reply #12 on: September 02, 2010, 11:19:AM »

The Roman Pontiffs have said that revealing dress is sinful and that this does not change with time or fashion. Our Lady of Fatima also predicted that in later times (now) people would follow abominable fashions that would lead souls to hell.
Logged

As I have accepted the sede impedite position, I revoke my former posts which contained gallicanist tendencies.
JoeVoxxPop
Member

Gender: Male
Posts: 10,372



« Reply #13 on: September 02, 2010, 02:32:PM »

The Roman Pontiffs have said that revealing dress is sinful and that this does not change with time or fashion. Our Lady of Fatima also predicted that in later times (now) people would follow abominable fashions that would lead souls to hell.
zackly
Logged
SoCalLocal
Member

Posts: 995



« Reply #14 on: September 02, 2010, 11:43:PM »

Do they own the land? If not, they have no right to tell people how to dress. If the government wants to start enforcing laws of public decency it has the authority to do so, but a bunch of people living in one particular place do not.

If they own the property they can make up whatever rules they want for visitors. 
I guess you didn't really read the excerpt closely.

It's not done by the government. It's not paid for by the government. Even the Civil Liberty yahoos aren't getting involved.

If the village is majority Hasidic, then visitors ought to know the local customs. I see no difference in posting a sign in Amish country warning of horse-drawn vehicles on the road. Or even those unofficial "slow - children playing" signs people put up.

I think it's a good idea, myself. For too long, decent people have had to suffer offense for fear of offending the uncouth.     
Logged


JoeVoxxPop
Member

Gender: Male
Posts: 10,372



« Reply #15 on: September 02, 2010, 11:59:PM »

Zackly
Logged
Iolanthe
Member

Gender: Female
Personality type: broken record
Posts: 5,220


"If one can't be happy one must be amused"


« Reply #16 on: September 03, 2010, 01:21:AM »

I guess you didn't really read the excerpt closely.

It's not done by the government. It's not paid for by the government. Even the Civil Liberty yahoos aren't getting involved.

If the village is majority Hasidic, then visitors ought to know the local customs. I see no difference in posting a sign in Amish country warning of horse-drawn vehicles on the road. Or even those unofficial "slow - children playing" signs people put up.

I think it's a good idea, myself. For too long, decent people have had to suffer offense for fear of offending the uncouth.     

I guess you didn't read my question closely. The excerpt says the signs are on private property, but that doesn't necessarily mean the whole village is private property, which is what I was asking. People can put whatever signs they want on their front lawn.

The "It" in your second paragraph is ambiguous. Please specify if it refers to the village, or to the local custom of enforcing a dress code, because it can be taken either way.

If anyone cares to answer my question, I'd be grateful. I'm genuinely curious if they're doing this on private property or not.
Logged

"Tenthly, one should pour tea into the cup first. This is one of the most controversial points of all; indeed in every family in Britain there are probably two schools of thought on the subject. The milk-first school can bring forward some fairly strong arguments, but I maintain that my own argument is unanswerable. This is that, by putting the tea in first and stirring as one pours, one can exactly regulate the amount of milk, whereas one is liable to put in too much milk if one does it the other way round."
George Orwell
StrictCatholicGirl
Gold Fish
*
Posts: 11,329


Downton Addict


« Reply #17 on: September 03, 2010, 07:39:AM »

I'm all for modesty but sleeves past the elbows is ridiculous in summer. They also want you to "use appropriate language" (no F-bombs!) and practice "gender separation" when in public. That last part is a bit strange.
Logged

"We are afraid of God's surprises." -- Pope Francis
SoCalLocal
Member

Posts: 995



« Reply #18 on: September 03, 2010, 08:54:AM »


I guess you didn't read my question closely. The excerpt says the signs are on private property, but that doesn't necessarily mean the whole village is private property, which is what I was asking. People can put whatever signs they want on their front lawn.

The "It" in your second paragraph is ambiguous. Please specify if it refers to the village, or to the local custom of enforcing a dress code, because it can be taken either way.

If anyone cares to answer my question, I'd be grateful. I'm genuinely curious if they're doing this on private property or not.
The "It refers to the posting of signs.

The original article says "A village trustee pointed out the signs said nothing about consequences for violating these guidelines – because there are no consequences."

“We’re not threatening anyone,” said Rabbi Jacob Freund. “Everybody is free to come in and be the same, like all other places in the United States.”

So dressing like Jessica Pantalemon may elicit a scowl, but it won’t earn you a summons.

The New York Civil Liberties Union said because the signs were paid for privately and are not on public land and they pass constitutional muster."

So, it's not a law. There are no fines. There is no public money involved. It's immaterial if the land if private or not.  The article doesn't say.
Logged
Credo
Member

Posts: 6,513



« Reply #19 on: September 03, 2010, 09:14:AM »

Quote from: Exilenomore
Roman Pontiffs have said that revealing dress is sinful and that this does not change with time or fashion

That doesn’t answer my question regarding culture. "The pope says so," isn't convincing by itself.

Quote from: Cyriacus
My basic point is that FKK and "social nudity" are profoundly anti-Christian

Then how does one account for Jo. Paul’s (of happy memory) work Love and Responsibility? The book backs up commonsense when it states,

Quote from:  Karol Wojtyla; Love and Responsibility, New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 1981, pp. 176-192
“Sexual modesty cannot then in any simple way be identified with the use of clothing, nor shamelessness with the absence of clothing and total or partial nakedness. There are circumstances in which nakedness is not immodest… nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness. Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person, when its aim is to arouse concupiscence, as a result of which the person is put in the position of an object of enjoyment. The human body is not in itself shameful... Dress is always a social question, a function of… social customs. In this matter there is no exact similarity in the behavior of particular people, even if they live in the same age and the same society. The principle of what is truly immodest is simple and obvious... If someone takes advantage of such an occasion to treat the person as an object of enjoyment (even if his action is purely internal) it is only he who is guilty of shamelessness… not the other.”
Logged

I promise not to put anything here which might help us question our mind-forged manacles, inspire us, or help us in any way at all.

N.B.: I will not be posting on this site again until the Christmas octave. Have a good Advent.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
 
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC