Monday, September 17, 2007

Saggy Pants Illegal?

We have all seen them - the kids wearing their pants almost to their knees with their unmentionables showing.

Is it crass? Yes.
Is it bad fashion? Yes.
Is it just kinda silly? Absolutely.
But, illegal? In some parts of the country it is.

I have to disagree with making it illegal. We shouldn't legislate everything that bothers us.

So, now you get to chime in on the poll to the right. Let me know what you would do. --->


Jason said...

Positive law is supposed to be reflective of the divine law, right? So if there is a law that upholds the virtue of modesty, why would you not support it?

Marcel said...

Because I agree with St. Thomas - not all vice needs a human law to prevent it -

jason said...

On the contrary I reply that:

Though the Angelic Doctor does not see the need for the state to legislate against all vices, he does concur that the state ought to legislate against "the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained..." Now the question must be, does a lack of modesty involved with "kids wearing their pants almost to their knees with their unmentionables showing" constitute an offense that endagers the public safety? I think that a case could absolutely be made that it does, as lust and sexual sin, (which the virtues modesty & chastity seek to regulate)are driving forces behind our culture of death. Now in this day and age, unfortunately, seeing just about any body part on the street is not suprising, thus causing little (or no) scandal. But while it may not be a cause of scandal, often times clothing still causes lust, which as I have already mentioned is the driving force behind the culture of death. Therefore if immodest fashions, such as sagging, contribute directly to other actions that endanger the saftey of some members of society (the unborn) and if it is further a vice from which the majority of the populace could abstain quite easily, does it not then fall under St. Thomas' category of vices that the state is justified in legislating against?

Marcel said...

I would disagree with your application of the principles. I believe it to be too stringent in this area. Jailing someone for showing their underwear (not a body part) is going much too far. I don't think that undies = "most grievous offenses".

jason said...

Well I can agree with you that jail time seems too stringent a punishment, but I'd still argue that the only reason that showing one's underwear in public doesn't seem like a big deal is not because it's not a big deal but because we've become accustomed to it through the prevalence of immodest vices. I think though not perfect, the cities legislation is still a step in the right direction, and that immodesty still can be counted as a MORE (not most) grevious offense, simply because the sins which it is the gateway to are the most grevious of all offenses against God and man.

patrick said...

Can any one say civil liberties. This is a slippery slope if i've ever seen one. first baggy pants, then torn jeans and eventually we'll have an american dress code. im not saying i support these dress styles but i do live in america and last time i checked the government shouldnt be controlling us, we should be controlling the government. Also, What about plumbers, and young kids whos pants are always falling down. If this law was propperly executed we'd have more six year olds in jail then we could count.