http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-pm-backs-burkini-bans-as-three-more-towns-consider-outlawing-garments-a7195136.html Honestly? I doubt it's really about the swimsuits representing the "enslavement of women."
Are you freaking kidding me? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Personally, I am very modest and I don't want to be stared at while I'm at the pool. I have spent a ton of time trying to find suits that are modest and I almost always wind up on sites that cater to Muslims when I shop for a new one. I have never gotten one that conservative before, but I see nothing wrong with it at all. As an American atheist and mother, I intentionally seek out modest swimwear for myself and my daughter. We wear shorts and swimshirts a lot when we go to public pools. I'd probably do more, but I'm not keen on the odd looks. At home, I really don't care.
I do see women and young girls wearing these at the public pools and I always want to give them a high-five. Even in families, you'll see some girls wearing them and others not. Why? Because modesty is a PERSONAL choice. It is not mandated the way some people think it is. All of the women I know who have chosen to dress modestly as a Muslim do it because this is their preference. I know some who have even changed their stance on it in adulthood, moving to more modest clothes.
Pools and beaches are a meat market and I feel sad every time I see a young girl showing off her "goods" like she's on sale. Modesty is about self respect, and not allowing others to size you up judge you for your womanly curves. Enslavement my ass. -_-
lol I was so shocked that totally flew over my head while I was reading.
I think full cover swimsuits are a great idea -- but only when the sun's between 10 and 2 o'clock and above 25C - no more sunburn or skin cancer.
Otherwise let's have full nudity.
After all the natives of the Amazon and New Guinea jungles don't get uncontrollable urges at the sight of skin or wobbly bits, and neither do the residents of nudist camps.
It's a matter of what we're accustomed to seeing. All kinds of flesh, no different to looking at a person's face or hands if you see it every day in all shapes and sizes. Hiding it just pumps the imagination, gives nakedness a sexual meaning that's all in the head.
The more you hide something, the more it becomes an issue.
Still, I go for letting people choose. Maybe have separate beaches if people feel more comfortable that way.
I think the French PM has a damned fine point, but I'm ethically opposed to government dictating anyone's form of dress. Even in France, human beings are not state property. I think he'd make far better use of his/the government's time by exposing the IDEOLOGY of Islam for what it is and let women/men dress however the hell they like.
Tell the truth, Al. You love stepping on landmines in your spare time, right? :-)
Foo'pah!
Yeah! After all, Islam is divisive enough. :-)
No, I don't see it as enslavement of women. It's just Islam. Calling it "enslavement of women" is the French desperately seeking a politically correct way to criticise Islam. This is the cancer of cultural Marxism.
The French need to have the balls to declare Islam incompatible with French values and reject it. If the French can't stop apologising for following the national interest of France, then it's all over for them. It's probably too late already. They're just sliding towards being an Islamic state.
Islam is completely incompatible with multiculturalism. It's an aggressive monoculture. They will never integrate. It will be suppressed or it will take over. There is no middle ground. The truth is that Islam is a stronger culture than western liberalism in every respect. Islam will win the culture war unless we act now while we are still a majority.
France should close it's borders to the Muslim world, deport all non citizens and abandon multiculturalism.
Western liberalism is doomed one way or the other. It will either be destroyed by conservatives or destroyed by Islam.
Cultures always clash when they interact. Sometimes they have help (although they rarely need it) and I suspect this is one of those occasions.
Ideology, stupid or otherwise, is what civilizations are built on.
Why do you talk is if you don't have an ideology? Why do you talk as if you are somehow separate and above it all? You have an ideology and you too committed to that ideology to change.
They are incapable of exposing the ideology of Islam. The reason they accuse Islam of oppressing women is because that is one of the only criticisms that political correctness allows. Most of the things that need to be said, will go unsaid. They are too afraid to speak the truth.
What do you hope to achieve by exposing Islam? Do you expect the Muslims themselves to see the error of their ways and embrace western values? (Never going to happen!) Or do you expect the non Muslim population to do something once they see Islam for what it is?
I used to be very libertarian. Though I have come to believe that if a society is too libertarian, it becomes unsustainable. It's a form of ideological pacifism that is inevitably conquered by a more aggressive culture.
It's you that can't separate your ideology of inclusiveness from the fact Muslims don't have the same values.
There is no such thing as modern Islam. Liberal Muslims just aren't real Muslims. They are ignoring what the Koran tells them to do. Have you ever read the Koran? I have. It's not just a religion. It's a societal model. It's inseparable from the legal system and the government. It's a theocracy that openly calls for jihad to spread itself.
Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are very different and have been in conflict for millennia. Have you read any history? Do you pay the slightest attention to what is happening in the world now? To consider them the same is pure cultural Marxism.
Muslim fundamentalists slaughter people on mass and Christian fundamentalists refuse to bake gay couples wedding cakes. Can you get some perspective?
I do believe in accepting others but only if they accept me and have compatible values. Unilateral acceptance is a form of pacifism and pacifists get conquered.
Yes. This is SO important to keep world peace. I mean everyone knows if you have an actual bikini showing off your tits and ass that is so much more respectful to the nation at hand. How deliriously stupid is this complaint?
I never said that Christianity or the west is perfect or was perfect. (I don't consider Christianity as playing a very significant part in all this. Christianity is no longer the dominant philosophical force in western civilization. Maybe it never was. Liberalism is in the driving seat now.)
It's doesn't matter whether Christians are more enlightened than Muslims or whether the west is more enlightened than the middle east. That's not the point. What matters is that they are INCOMPATIBLE and conflict between them is INEVITABLE. Multiculturalism doesn't work. It has never worked. So it shouldn't be attempted.
It's like putting a bunch of cats and dogs in the same cage and arguing about whether cats are more noble creatures than dogs when they don't get on.
I never said that Muslims were the only threat to our security. Though groups like the KKK are completely insignificant by comparison. Islam is an existential threat. You have no sense of perspective.
A hypocrite is someone who violates the principles they claim to stand for. I'm not a hypocrite because I don't believe in egalitarianism. It is YOU that considers it a moral principle, not me. I believe in treating different things differently.
In Britain, people have almost forgotten that once Picts, Celts, and Vikings were mortal enemies. Now, they collectively regard themselves as whites. The colour of hair and eyes no longer makes a difference.
Now they worry about invasions of golden, red and brown skinned people.
Perhaps it takes 1,600 years to achieve an attitude of recognition that we all have red blood.
But i suppose the issue of multiculturalism is not one of race, but differences in beliefs, values, and lifestyles.
Here in Australia, multiculturalism works pretty well most of the time.
All it takes is that the vast majority agree on thing: "that each has the right to live as he or she sees fit, so long as it doesn't infringe on the right of any other to the same." John Stuart Mills, 1806 -73.
It's not difficult.
It's just live and let live. Much less hassle than fighting.
It has vastly improved our quality of life.
Where once most of us ate a diet of charred meat and over-boiled vegetables, now we eat spaghetti carbonara, felafels, mousaka, saag paneer, sushi and so on - both healthier and more delicious.
Where once we went to footy or Shakespeare, now we also have Brothers Karamazov, Japanese Kabuki, African dance or the music of Makam. All the arts have flourished, and with them comes a broader and fuller understanding of what it means to be human.
It is wonderful.
France and many other countries are getting hit hard by extremism can't blame them for doing something. Terrorists attacks have killed hundreds. It's way different hearing about it in America or somewhere else than actually being in France with SO much happening closer to them. People are very nervous walking in public places because they don't feel safe. To add to that we have no idea what the atmosphere is like in those towns and what happens between citizens to really make a judgement call as the article also said there were clashes.
What I can say just going off of what I know of the history of the religious police and sharia law in many Muslim countries is that in many areas it isn't a choice for most Muslim women. Most Muslims support sharia law (89% in Pakistan for example) because it's apart of their religious culture which is a fact but the problem with the majority being supportive of something like that is unfortunately many women are victim to that same culture (many males to but for different reasons.)
Hartfire - Superficial diversity is the spice of life. I have travelled extensively to sample as many of the world's diverse cultures as I can. I enjoyed it immensely. Though sadly some cultures have deep rooted differences and you can't ignore it.
I have no doubt that in a few thousand years the conflicts that exist today won't be here. Though new conflicts will certainly have arisen.
What you say is high minded though ultimately irrelevant. We have the world we have. Conflict with the Muslim world will persist for the rest of our lives.
The fact that such conflict will one day cease (either because Islam has taken over the world or been destroyed or become something very different) is of little comfort. It takes two to make peace. There is no unilateral peace.
Burkini is an unfair name, because the outfit does not cover the face as a burqa does.
Hijabini would be a better name.
A Muslim woman may choose to cover her hair, neck, and face if she wishes, but the Koran does not command it, nor is her guardian-male permitted to compel her.
When Mohammed was asked to clarify how much a woman should cover up, he simply said it should be long and no part should be seen to jiggle. When pushed to be more specific, he absolutely refused.
So because the Hijabini covers the neck and hair but not the face or shoulders, it is a little more cover than the Prophet specified. That makes it the woman's choice and therefore not slavery.
Such a costume has no effect on anyone's security or safety, so I see no reason why it shouldn't be the woman's right to dress as she sees fit.
The word slavery when we westerners use it carries a highly pejorative and insulting connotation. It is not helpful to peaceful co-existence with Muslims in our communities.
Islam requires submission to the will of God. But the choice of religion and belief is free in western countries and should remain so.
So those who are Muslims should be permitted to practice their faith as they see fit, so long as they do not attempt to impose it by force on others (which would be an infringement on the equal right of others to freedom.)
The west needs to have clear boundaries to protect freedom, but at the same time, the more it practices kindness, understanding, and acceptance of difference, the better the chances of evolving a cooperative and peaceful coexistence of many cultures. We can learn from one another.
It is arrogant to assume that one way is ultimately correct, because we may always be unknowingly not knowing what we don't know.
For instance, we could solve a huge number of our economic woes if we put an end to usary. Islam forbids usary. It's one thing we could learn from Islam which could help save many nations from dire poverty, and save wealthy nations from an even worse GFC.
I am atheist and highly unlikely to ever convert - but knee-jerk intolerance is stupidity -- it only escalates problems.
It always helps to look things up and double check.