France surrenders (again) to Islamic terrorists.

[Armoured]

Perhaps, or perhaps the OP has fought against radical Islam for 20 years in the United Sates Marine Corps in Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq and has seen the side of radical Islam that isn’t shown on TV. Gathering up the pieces of your left hand after an IED turned it into hamburger meat can do that to a person.

So... DID the OP? Because I fought radical Islam too, and came back injured to boot, yet I manage to understand the difference between "radical Islam" and "all Islam".

I don't recall you mentioning ever having served before, though?

 

[Gadarene]

Of course the West has never had such restrictive swimwear! Oh Wait!

We actually had pretty much the same thing except both for men and women. This is from about 1910. It was rather different just a quarter of a century later!

Oh wait! We stopped wearing that how long ago?

If we can just stop the anti Muslim crowd I expect the change to proceed a bit faster for Muslims this time round.

Errrr given that they haven't changed in centuries I doubt they'll change faster than a society that *doesn't* have an ideology that requires women be covered on and off the beach because of "modesty".

 

[Gadarene]

Is this OK? The ban would have prevented these girls from swimming in France.

Are they burkinis?

Also these: http://meanttobemodest.com/

Yes, Christian demands for modesty are also stupid, and should similarly be given no credence or support.

But here's the thing - we challenged Christianity on that, and it retreated somewhat. The same needs to be done with Islam and it's not being done.

 

[Gadarene]

It's telling that neither side of the issue admits any kind of agency to the affected women. It's just "us undressing those women" versus "them dressing their women".

How about letting them decide for themselves what they wear? If you don't think muslim women are able to decide for themselves what they wear to the beach, you are treating them like little children or pets, yourself.

What should be done is support BOTH kinds of women, those that wear burkinis and those that were something else, provided that they need the help. They should be protected from vengefull husbands or family members that disapprove of western clothing, as well as people who decry them for wearing full-body swimwear.

That's great! I agree with letting them choose! Thing is, only one side in this debate has an ideology in play that enforces covering women up at all times in the name of modesty. And it's not France's secular democracy.

The question is how many of those burkinis are worn by choice, and why isn't there disproportionately more public outrage of the much greater incidence of being forced to wear these garments vs one incident where a bad law was passed and quickly overturned? You know the modesty injunction in these strains of Islam aren't going to change as quickly, but few here seem concerned about that. Some are even using the same language to describe these garments as "modest".

 

[Goonie]

Are they burkinis?



Yes, Christian demands for modesty are also stupid, and should similarly be given no credence or support.

But here's the thing - we challenged Christianity on that, and it retreated somewhat. The same needs to be done with Islam and it's not being done.

But banning clothing is not they way to go about it.

 

[Gadarene]

But banning clothing is not they way to go about it.

I agree with that, but people seem content to just stop talking about the issue that caused the burkini to exist now the ban's been overturned.

 

[tulc]

Well, if we're going to hand-wring this much over one instance of one silly law backfiring, then we should be focusing even more on challenging and reforming the outdated belief system that insists women be permanently covered up for the sake of "modesty".

...so now we're talking about the Amish and old order Roman Catholic nuns?
tulc(thinks we've wandered pretty far from the OP)

 

[Gadarene]

It's descriptive, not valued. I don't like it. My favorite swimwear is a birthday suit.

It is inherently valued. Modesty (in reference to dress) is nothing but an appeal to values.

Who's taking away choices? That's the issue here in my eyes. Who is making women less free? Yes, obviously Islam does a pretty good job of it, and we should push back against Islam where we can. But this is not a good place to fight this battle. For all intents and purposes, many of these women want to wear this clothing.

And how do you know that? It seems to be just assumed, in the face of the fact that strains of Islam mandate women be covered up.

Those who would rather not but can't do otherwise would not be well-served by banning it, given that this would just make it pretty much impossible for them to go to the beach or the pool. It doesn't stop Islam and it doesn't liberate women. Let's discourage it, by all means, but banning it does more harm than good in my eyes.

IMO New Atheism is not done yet. We need to push back Islam the way Christianity was successfully pushed back.

 

[Gadarene]

...so now we're talking about the Amish and old order Roman Catholic nuns?
tulc(thinks we've wandered pretty far from the OP)

Don't be disingenous. There is no comparison there. There is no compunction in Christianity for all women to become nuns. The Amish give their children the choice to leave or remain.

 

[mnorian]

Mod Hat On

Permanently
Due to Flaming
Amongst The members
​