RICHMOND, Va. — Virginians who wear their pants so low their underwear shows may want to think about investing in a stronger belt.
The state's House of Delegates passed a bill Tuesday authorizing a $50 fine for anyone who displays his or her underpants in a "lewd or indecent manner."
Del. Lionell Spruill Sr. (search), a Democrat who opposed the bill, had pleaded with his colleagues to remember their own youthful fashion follies.
During an extended monologue Monday, he talked about how they dressed or wore their hair in their teens. On Tuesday, he said the measure was an unconstitutional attack on young blacks that would force parents to take off work to accompany their children to court just for making a fashion statement.
...
Del. Lionell Spruill Sr. "He talked about how they dressed or wore their hair in their teens."
This has nothing to do with hair, though certain hair styles are indecent. Quite a difference between hair and underpants.
Another statement he said, "This is a foolish bill, Mr. Speaker, because it will hurt so many." My answer is found in Matthew 5:28 because this would be promoting such. Adultery is serious like any other sin. Lust does eventually bring forth sin and sin reaps death. (cf. James 1:14-15) The young people, even Christians, are into this fashion too. To me, responsibility should be the focal point along with unslothfulness. Any parent should not let junior have his own way all the time.
One last point, "attack on young blacks."? Since when does this apply to a certain people group? Well, more blacks do wear pants this way, but lets not favor slothfulness for some.
"Justice for all" - and that is not even from Christian document
So man's expectations, rather than God's, is regulative in public modesty.
BTW, Peter probably had a good reason to be disrobed while fishing. Being in the water in a lawful calling with full street clothes on can be dangerous, and preservation of human life precedes modesty. But recreational swimming isn't a calling.
There is a difference between showing off your underwear in public and wearing a swimsuit at the beach.
The difference is in the context. When you go to the mall with your kids, you do not expect to see someone's underwear. When you go to the beach or to a pool, you can expect to see people in swimsuits. Btw, people don't wear swimsuits to the mall either.
Neil, there is a lot of swimwear or the near lack of it, ;-) that definitely should be outlawed. The legislator no doubt likes to look at good-looking women more than he does pot-bellied men. However, I think the Bible stresses that both men and women are to be covered. At least Adam and Eve knew that, when they found out what right and wrong were.
Kevin Swanson | 10/7/2012
COMMENTS | 
christopher000 from rhode island: "pray for the families and children in moore, ok...."
