Photographer and gun rights activist Oleg Volk nails it with this photo and graphic. Take a look:
Individual Freedom--What a Quaint Notion
(It took me about 30 minutes to notice anything but the model, though).
(And I'm not talking about the gun).
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I don't think that is the best or strongest argument for individual liberty.
In virtually every community in early America (through about 1900 actually) the woman pictured would have be labeled a "hussy" and run out of the community.
Modern Americans frequently fail to remember that immorality is just as much a tyranny, as tyranny is immoral. Locke framed it this way:
"So that, however it may be mistaken, the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom: for in all the states of created beings capable of laws, where there is no law, there is no freedom: for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists: (for who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?) but a liberty to dispose, and order as he lists, his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property, within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own."
The communists know that immorality and licentiousness tear down the strength of a society, that is why social issues figure prominently the list of "current communist goals" compiled by Cleon Skousen in his 1958 book "The Naked Communist":
"24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.
26. Present homo-sexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents."
Now please, tell me the model doesn't encourage promiscuity.
It is not that I agree with Islam, or the Iranian government, as they seek to impose morality by force of arms, rather than legitimate law.
Morality must be encouraged and taught, and immorality discouraged. Samuel Adams told us two things that stand out about virtue, or morality:
"He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard for his country. There is seldom an instance of a man guilty of betraying his country, who had not before lost the feeling of moral obligations in his private connections."
"A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.... While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.... If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security."
We would be wise to take heed.
Paul, I don't think the point is to encourage promiscuity but to highlight the point that in free societies we are free to make our own choices concerning religion, dress codes, etc.
These things should not be dictated by govenment policy.
This is where the law of unintended consequences cuts both ways. I am aware that it was probably not his intention to encourage promiscuity. In fact, I am reasonably certain that Oleg thinks nothing of women in short dresses. Nonetheless, it is and will ever remain that dresses that end above the knee (reveal the thigh) are an inducement to promiscuity. Without going into detail, I will let John T. Molloy speak:
"The dress is the most versatile garment a woman can have, for the dress can be anything from sportswear to formal wear. A dress can say “I̓m in charge,” and it can say “I̓m available.”
Certain dresses have a higher authority rating than many skirted suits. The strongest is the gray pinstriped dress.
But the dress is more subject to the whims of fashion than the skirted suit. Dress lengths, for example, go up and down more than the length of skirted suits. This is one reason why I am not suggesting dresses for the business uniform. Another reason is that the dress can be the ultimate seduction garment. It is the outfit in which men find women most alluring. And sexual attraction detracts from authority."
Dress for Success for Women, John T. Molloy
All I have to add to that is, the higher it is, the more it says "I'm available."
My point was not that government should regulate clothing, but that society (meaning each of us acting individually in concert) should regulate clothing and its appearance by what we individually approve and disapprove of. And, that we are weakened morally by the encouragement to promiscuity, whether it is done intentionally, or unintentionally.
The fact that the effect of the woman's dress was not even thought of speaks to the lack of foresight endemic in this society. However, in early American society, they knew and understood this well. This is an invaluable asset that we in America have lost.
From what I understand about Islam, especially the kind practiced in Iran, a longer, more conservative dress would be just as offensive to the Iranian Government. And, that it is equally offensive that she is holding a handgun.
In my view, the more modest dress would have been just as effective a message about liberty, and a whole lot more encouraging to a much larger segment of the population. In short, it would have sent a message with no other messages interfering with it, or detracting from it.
But, what do I know, I'm just a stick in the mud.
These things, in my opinion, are best left to parents in upbringing their children, and to churches. Teaching children what is appropriate or not is an educational issue for parents and religious groups. And, those parents and churches certainly have broad leeway in how they choose to instill moral values and which values to teach.
But as a matter of public policy? Nope. That is the price we pay for liberty. I am willing to pay it even if I may disagree with someone else's lifestyle. I can attempt to influence them with my values, but to encourage government to do it through legislation is not the way to go.
"My point was not that government should regulate clothing, but that society (meaning each of us acting individually in concert) should regulate clothing and its appearance by what we individually approve and disapprove of. And, that we are weakened morally by the encouragement to promiscuity, whether it is done intentionally, or unintentionally."
Precisely what do you think the above statement means? I said nothing about government regulation. Although, "blue laws" dominated the legal landscape of America to around 1940, and they predominately addressed "moral" issues. The real kicker to the whole thing is that Americans enjoyed more liberty then than now.
As a fundamental, unaffiliated Baptist, I would love to see everyone in church every time the doors are open, no alcohol anywhere, and everyone modestly dressed. However, I know that is not going to happen, and since it is a matter of the heart, I am certainly not going to impose that on anyone. What I do, is inform people of the consequences of their thoughts and actions, and allow the LORD to work on their heart, and they get to make the decision. To do anything else is entirely contrary to the Scripture. As I have stated elsewhere before, if someone wants and insists on sending themselves to Hell, then I cannot stop them. It is likewise for a society and nation: if they insist on taking the road to destruction, then I would be subverting the working of God if I stopped them.
As an illustration, we got Obama, because that is what we deserve as a nation, like it or not.
We as a nation, are:
self-absorbed (so is Obama)
generally ignorant (so is Obama)
cry-babies (so is Obama)
short-sighted (so is Obama)
totally ignorant of history (so is Obama)
willing to buy lies (so is Obama)
wanting something for nothing (so is Obama)
arrogant (so is Obama)
I could go on, but I think the point is made. Hence, we have fallen for the communist snare, as that is what we want.
We will be destroyed because we are unwilling to take a stand and pay the price for liberty (which is not license). You know, we could follow Moses example as applied to liberty:
By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward. (Hebrews 11:24-26)
However, as I stated, the choice is yours. However, we should realize that we are fighting a war, and losing.
I deliberately picked a dress that would raise American eyebrows. US is substantially more puritan than most of Western and now even Eastern Europe. So it really is a stretch to have people accept such an outfit -- though it's no more revealing than a pair of shorts.
Paul--if I misunderstood what you originally wrote, I apologize. I think we are on the same page concerning opposing government intrusion.
Oleg--you have done and continue to do Americans a great service in calling attention to the fight for gun rights.
Not a problem. We are on the same page concerning government intrusion.
I think though, we often get the cart before the horse in this matter. We "fail to remember" that a government is always a reflection of the society it governs. The Founding Fathers knew this, that is why the quote exists:
"Madam, you have a republic, if you can keep it."
Oleg,
A piece of mountain wisdom: Never poke a rattlesnake (or copperhead). You might get bit.
Deliberately picking a provocative outfit for your model so as to evoke a reaction, can and will alienate the very people who would be your strongest defenders. I stand by my contention that the picture would be just as effective if the model wore a more modest dress. All you have to focus on is the fact that she is independent-minded and able to defend herself.
As for my qualifications about what is wise to do, ask Wayne Fincher, who is a good friend of mine — and sitting in FCI Forrest City for manufacturing and possessing a short-barreled shotgun and machine guns. Had he been wise, he would be a free man today and still in possession of the arms in question. However, he decided to deliberately provoke the rattlesnake — and he got bit. The sad fact is that he was warned by myself and others not to do the very thing that got the attention of the Feds.
BTW, Scripturally, shorts are a no-no too, either male or female. Nakedness is nakedness. The same standard applies to both men and women.
Paul, can we talk about this not alcohol thing? ;)
Paul, I am not sure that showing leg qualifies as nakedness, but we all have our opinions on that. Scripture is not as clear on the subject...that is, there are broad statements without providing specific definitions of what constitutes nakedness.
I know nakedness when I see it--the person has no clothes on. But the model in the picture had on clothes.
I don't mean to stir up anything with you, Paul, I'm just sayin'...
Hi SA, good to hear from you.
Lloyd-Morgan, You are not going to "stir up anything" with me. As touching that, this discussion would be best left to a solid study of Scripture. I know many Baptists (of whatever stripe) that would probably agree with you. That would include most members of a church that I used to attend that labels itself as fundamental, bible-believing, Baptist.
However, I also know the body of evidence (no pun intended) that I have, from both Scripture and secular sources that clearly show that baring the thigh is nakedness.
Again, as I stated earlier, this is not the time and place, and there are larger Scriptural issues that have significant bearing on one's understanding of the issue.
Please understand (because I am not interested in arguing with you over this or any other issue) that I hold strictly to the admonition from Scripture that states:
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (I Thessalonians 5:21)
I learned a long time ago not to speak or write anything without the proof to back it up. My desire is to bring understanding to people about the things that matter — the primary one being an individual's relationship to the LORD God.
That's really hard to do if all one does is argue and beat people over the head.
So, no offense taken, and SA's comment made me smile.
What about broad statements. Are they allowed to talk? And if they do, are we obligated to listen?
Hey, just asking. ;)
Hope my wife doesn't read this!
SA, according to human beings of the female variety, we never listen to them anyway.
But I do listen...when they say something I am interested in.
That never was good enough...
Post a Comment