Welcome to CMSimple

Where does the line come between individual liberty and collective norms? To what extent should the freedom to do something overrule someone else's "disgust" rather than harm? Why should a group of people claiming an "offence" to their "religion" take precendence over a collection of individuals wanting to do something that is not illegal? Why should the views of any religion be allowed to have any influence on someone not adherent to that religion? Why should any religion be allowed to have influence on any activity by non-adherents saving only that the activities are not maliciously directed against the adherents? Why are people assumed to be "offended" by nudity while I am not allowed to be "offended" by fanatical enforcement of zero exposure?

Religions have the power of a block vote. Their members are discouraged from thinking for themselves and take their opinions ready-formed from their leaders (interpreting the always-ambiguous official texts). Thus they can effectively amplify the ambitions of a few non-representative wrinklies and megalomaniacs by the millions of zombies that obey them. OK, this is a rather extreme caricature, but in general religions get too much influence over legislation and behaviour, and the millions of independent individual views nowhere near enough. This is seen in the influence of fundamentalist Christianity in the US and elsewhere, and the increasing influence of Islam and others in Europe. Religions almost universally desire to restrict liberty and individuality. Naturism is an expression of liberty and individuality.