Some people see a nude -- person, painting, or statue -- and they see sin and vice and horror.

They see something terrible that they have to shield the kids from.

Public nudity caused a stir two years ago in the town. Distinction Art Gallery on Grand Avenue put a male nude painting in its window.

Some residents complained.

The gallery took the painting out of the window.

Then other residents said, "Hold on, that's free speech and that's a nice painting; and besides, what's wrong with a nude?"

The painting went back in the window. Artist Robert Ferguson was pleased. For the moment, the noise seemed to fade away.

Until the last couple of weeks, when a similar controversy erupted. This time it was a Second Avenue gallery, right near Orange. Robert Ferguson was again involved; you can't keep a good artist down.

Ferguson displayed another painting of a male nude outside his gallery.

This time, a resident named Zachary Stark saw the painting. He called the police. He also went before the City Council to ask for an ordinance prohibiting nude artwork outside or in display windows.

Stark, father of two, said, "I want to decide as a parent what my kids see."

That is a reasonable position. So decide. And then, holding to your decision, keep the kids away from sinful environs.

But trying to decide for him what Ferguson should and should not show, or for the art world what it should and shouldn't create, or the rest of us see and enjoy, is neither Stark's business nor his right. It's not the council's, either.

As to nudity itself. Finding sin in the human form has always seemed to me more revealing of the beholder than of the beheld; beyond that, a mystery. The body is a glorious vessel, breathtaking to see in a state of clotheslessness, from the east or west, south or north. Hip, hip, hooray, as it were.

However, accepting for a moment the premise that nudity is bad for children and will somehow twist them up, it seems fair to point out that there are a lot worse things for kids to see. Some of these things are practically guaranteed to shape the darkness for little humans until they become bigger and darker.

Here is a partial list.

The average televised war. There they are exposed to blood and thunder, death and destruction almost beyond comprehension, sometimes in real time. If as a parent I had to choose between nudity and war for my child to observe, there'd be no contest.

The average football game. Whether playing or watching, the kids learn that senseless games of knocking each other over as viciously as possible, as in football, for example, are honorable and admired, and should be cheered on. Don't get me started on hockey.

The average television series. Every night, on nearly every channel, "action" is the star. Shootings, knifings, dismemberment, torture and other forms of entertainment command the shows. Kids can see 20 or 30 killings in half an hour if they are diligent, and they are. Apparently some parents believe this healthier than nudity for the kids to watch.

If nudity must be shunned -- or criminalized -- so that children will not be forever scarred, what in the world should we do with these accepted forms of the obscene? I mean, you take war away from a frothing politician, you take away much of his reason for being.

As physical creations, people are pretty much top of the line. They have eyes to look into, for example, that tell the secrets of a life, of a soul and its pain unrelenting or of its enduring bubbles of joy.

Bodies, it seems to me, are grace and beauty. They are themselves enough cover for the soul's hard journeys, and they do a good job. Looking at them will not injure a child, I think, or if it will, I don't know how. I cannot imagine nudity leaving a single scar.

Contact columnist John Van Doorn at (760)739-6647 or jvandoorn@nctimes.com.