Good on you for recognizing that, and not pushing anti-atheist prejudice this time.

France is a very irreligious country. And the intolerance of these self described irreligious citizens is overt.

Your post is quite sparse with the former.

Progress.

Nice try, but you fail again.

to burkinis in the pool. Not in any way. Your conclusion is unsupported.

refutes your attempt at rebuttal.

Observation and analysis are essential to understanding the "why" of political actions MM.

But, you keep trying, don't you?

demonstrates something.

How much you take that into consideration is up to you, of course. You have not made your case. The ban was passed almost unanimously in France, as someone else pointed out.

It is not a ban created or passed by only the non-religious. It was almost universally wanted.

My opinion is that it is a stupid thing to ban. That will always remain my opinion.

My opinion of your logic, however, is not positive.

You know, in case I encounter the same alleged behavior from you.

I too have more than a few.

I had no idea.

Maybe it is worth exploring why modern France has been, at times, openly hostile towards religion.

Doesn't make it right I guess, but it's not like it came out of nowhere, or came out of 'atheism'. It's a reaction, not a dogma or commandment.

That ban is a stupid one, and religion-based. Why would anyone care what clothing women wear while bathing in a public pool? It is pure prejudice, of the sort only religious people seem to feel.

As an atheist, I have no concerns about bathing attire for men or women. It seems to me to be a completely artificial issue, based on religious grounds.

As for myself, I am in favor of bathing naked. France is well-known for its clothing optional beaches. I think I would find a "burkini" to be oppressive and clingy when wet. I wouldn't think it would be very comfortable. But, to each his or her own, I suppose.

than at the conservative religious beliefs that slut-shame women into strict clothing options.

One way or another, it's all about prejudice. Why anyone cares about what people wear in the pool escapes me.

Yes, some Islamic women are more or less forced into wearing such clothing. But also, the locals appear to be prejudiced against Muslims in general. Both are wrong. Let the women bathe in the pool, either way.

The whole thing is ridiculous, and now we have someone saying that it is the atheists and non-religious who are really the ones discriminating against burkinis in swimming pools. Well, this athiest doesn't give a damn, one way or another, what people wear. There are far larger concerns, frankly, regarding religious intolerance than that.

And it's brought here, of course, as a "counterpoint" as if making a clothing rule is the same thing as executing people for being homosexual.

That's what I object to.

"There are far larger concerns, frankly, regarding religious intolerance than that."

Exactly. But whataboutists gotta whatabout.

This article does not fit your personal criterion for what is acceptable to post in the Religion Group.

And we understand that.

You're welcome to post any sort of thing. However, if it makes no sense, you can count on people to point that out in reply. Anyone can object to any post, as well, and state their grounds for the objection. For some reason, that seems to bother you.

You can post anything. We can reply in any way. It's an open forum about religion, you see. Most of us appreciate that openness, and embrace it.

Yes, some do embrace it.

I'm out of this. It's gone all wacky...

You are correct.

That's the transparent, invalid strategy being used.

"What you really mean is...."

What nonsense, eh?

You should retract this and apologize to me.

But you won't, because you're like that. Keep showing everyone how you think an admirer of Jesus should act, g. You're doing such a great job.

That is something you cannot discern. You should not try. Instead, please try telling us what you mean, instead.

So obviously this problem is far larger than you will acknowledge.

The French Revolution had a lot to do with breaking away from the stranglehold the RCC had over them which was extremely oppressive. Religious freedom is not guaranteed in France and secularism is ingrained into their Constitution.

Judging France by American standards just isn’t all that valid. It should also be pointed out that the reason the burkini exists to begin with is because it comes from misogynistic cultures that compel modesty on women, but not men.

That's one reason I don't generalize about France and its politics.

I have an opinion regarding laws that restrict things like clothing. That opinion has nothing to do with nationalities or anything else. Are some Muslims misogynistic? Of course, but so are many Christians and uber-Orthodox Jews. Nevertheless, I am opposed to laws that regulate clothing or other religious symbols.

While France might not have religious freedom guarantees, I consider them to be important, as long as they do not impinge on the freedom of others who do not follow a particular religion.

That said, I also object to women being forced to wear a particular type of clothing by men on religious grounds. I consider religious freedom to be an individual right.

The French consider it rude to wear your religion on your sleeve, so to speak. So are the French wrong for being so heavy handed with it? Debatable. However, I find it hard to be that concerned over something that is clearly misogynistic to begin with.

want to protect. I have no doubt that some Muslim women feel oppressed by what they wear, but there are others who do not. I'm not able to discern which are which. So that's a difficult thing. Still, I don't think banning that clothing outright is the right approach, especially when those who impose such a ban are not Muslims.

It's a delicate balance. And that's just one issue. If I object to fundamentalists imposing their standards in public life, I also have to oppose imposition of other standards on fundamentalists.

So I oppose all imposition of "moral" standards in general. So, if a woman is required to dress a certain way, against her wishes, then I oppose that. By the same token, though, I would not prohibit a woman from choosing that type of clothing, independently. Both are wrong.

That's always the dillemma, isn't it?

Would we impose such restrictions here? No, but we are not France and we don’t have the same laws and values.

I oppose many of them. Every society imposes things on some people. That's unavoidable.

Where I live, I see Muslim women in all levels of dress. Are all of them being oppressed? I do not know. Ilhan Omar wears head coverings. Is she being oppressed? Right wingers mock and insult her for it. I have met her, now. I doubt she wears them to satisfy anyone else.

My principles are simple: Do not impose your will on others. I can do that. I cannot force others to do that, though, in many cases. Often, I do not know it is happening, or cannot discern another person's wishes.

If your religion requires a different morality expectation on women vs men, your religion sucks.

If they want to protest against discriminatory policies and prejudice, then they need to go to their Mosque. Are men required to cover themselves?

The ban applies to publicly funded pools. And these are citizens who pay taxes.

And in a country that identifies as irreligious, this blatant intolerance is revealing.

So much so they can’t even bear to acknowledge the underlying misogyny. Very telling that.

WhY iS coUNtRy X sO InTolErAnT??!!

but the larger issue is the French ban of the full face veil.
Should we condemn the French for pushing against a religion that forces the subjugation of women, while at the same time remain silent about those countries that have made this religious subjugation the law?

it s not freedom.

Last edited Fri Jun 28, 2019, 04:13 PM - Edit history (1)

about Muslim thocracies?

Remember, for him this is all about creating a "counterpoint" to religious atrocities and bigotry. He has outright admitted it. He'll likely tell you to start a new thread so he doesn't have to discuss the reason why Muslim women are forced or coerced to cover their bodies.

But I understand that this allows you to frame me as "the enemy".

You have admitted your posts are intended to be a "counterpoint" to those critical of religion.

in large part because people here can read what I actually say, rather than depend on your attempts at framing.

That's always been your downfall.

Over the last 3 years, I have worked locally with 3 different Arab organizations. Among the women, about 1/2 wear the hijab. None of them report feeling subjugated.

As to Muslim theocracies, they are run by patriarchal oppressors. And the citizens there are forced to follow their leaders.

to end all reproduction rights because they are Fundementalist.

But they won't tell you their religion is oppressive.

But is their religion oppressive to them, or is it oppressive to you as an outside observer?

are brainwashed into not thinking they are subjugated. Then it's all good?

Jeez!

I understand that some non-theists feel that all theists are brainwashed.

I am aware of six such societies, one with 7.5 million members. While each has some form of head covering (top of head, or hair wrap), none obscure the face in any way. Most are the sort of working class covering for carrying heavy loads on the head, or keeping hair out of their manual work. Practical solutions.

Maybe I missed one, wherein we can find women actually voluntarily choosing a face covering, rather than, what appears to me, to be a patriarchal social artifact.


Your anecdotes are fun and all, but I looked, honestly, for a non-patriarchal enforced face covering-observing society, and find none. Maybe you know of one?

Muslim theocracy. You know, after they've expatriated to somewhere that does not officially or generally socially enforce face coverings.

Why can't we find matriarchal societies that have employed the same accoutrement?

If the women freely choose to do so, that is their choice. It may not be your choice, but it is their choice.

Are you unwilling to directly answer the question, or do you not understand the question?

Edit: If you feel you do not entirely understand the question, or worry that the question is crafted as a 'gotcha' or other trickery, please say so, and I will honestly elaborate. It is a honest/simple question, but I understand if it looks suspicious to you.

The point here, the actual topic, involves intolerance for Muslims in France. So the "what about matrilineal societies" topic, while worthy of discussion, is not the topic here.

Some here might call it whataboutism in action. An attempt to divert from the topic of a mainly non-religious society being intolerant of expressions of religion.

Social Enforcement is a thing. It can be overt, or subtle. It can be externally applied, or internal.

When you assert 'they should be free to choose', I agree, and ask, are they?

A litmus test for that would be, are there any non-patriarchal societies, that choose the same thing? I am specifically looking for an example that is not even (possibly) post-patriarchal baggage. If women are actually FREE TO CHOOSE, can we find examples where men or specific religions, did not impose and enforce it, and the same practice arose anyway?

of intolerance for religion.

It is a direct response to your point that I agree with; they must be free to choose.

It raises the immediate question; are they?

Are any of us?

All of us are influenced, conditioned, by our environment. If you feel that you are not, that shows how subtle the conditioning can be.

If you are married, are you married because you have been conditioned to be so, and to see it as the best choice?

I am influenced in many ways. And because I am aware of it, it's the basis for my challenging many of those social rules.

So again, are they free to choose?
And again, for comparison, are there any matriarchal societies that have, of their own volition/free will, chosen this kind of veil for themselves?

French law does not ban the hijab, as you chose to focus on in post 51. The ' burkini' is not strictly a hijab. French law deals with the face covering, or niqab. These pool's policies about the 'burqini' are not related to French law.

This is about group intolerance for non-European difference.

There is undoubtably a nationalism, and anti-theism basis for the French people to so strongly reject veils, but there is also a legitimate communication and security component as well.

For the burkini in a pool, not so much of the latter as a justification. I don't anticipate the French Government will allow/endorse such draconian prohibition, because of the lack of security justification.

That is a slippery slope.

Go for it. Take a stand on principle. Let us all know how that works out for you.

But we know that. have you ever been to New Orleans at Mardi Gras? So many masks.

and expect it to behave so. (Likely why the pools are now closed, as I suspect the French either do directly as well, or are observing UN rules. Like Mardi Gras, a ski slope is contextually appropriate, and if someone demands to see your face (like a police officer, which would be legal (Terry Stop)) you wouldn't have an affirmative defence of 'sorry man, it's mardi gras, so no'. Where a religious exemption is a bigger deal.

And as I mentioned, the face covering is not at issue at the pools. Nor is French law. (They should be free to wear those burkini's.)

In public spaces, when people conceal their faces, it engenders suspicion. Another social enforcement thing. Much like someone open carrying a firearm. It's unusual. It's out of place. Many will interpret it as a security issue.

the issue of freedom is key here, and in my view the freedom of certain Muslims is being infringed for no good reason. In my area, I have only seen a woman wearing the niqab twice. But when I did, I was not afraid of her.

is it? Human nature, patriarchy, culture...but never religion.

Your diversion from these theocracies doing things BASED ON THE MUSLIM RELIGION is dully noted.

One part.

And there are many variants of Islam.

they shouldn't ban female mutilation?
Keeping women from leaving home or interacting with men other then there husband?
Should a free society allow people to completely cover their identity?

If you love in a society, you are subject to rules.

(To be more specific, but they gotta catch me first)

In Illinois, for example, marijuana will be legal to possess January 1.

female mutilation and honor killings?
The execution of Gay people?

You know, rules are rules.

Say those in charge in Grenoble. Where have we heard that before?

The response of subjugators everywhere to their victims.

My husband, and my two British cousins that we were vacationing with, had to purchase and wear “speedo” type suits because their “trunk” style suits were not acceptable. The reasoning behind this was that the trunks could easily be worn as street clothes and bring dirt, threads etc. into the pool. The men were DAMNED UNCOMFORTABLE in those speedos, but they wore them.

The pools and locker rooms were spotlessly clean. Apparently the pools accept “burkinis” if the garments are made from filter friendly materials.

What is hard to understand about a ban on potential STREET CLOTHES?

As an aside, in what remains one of the most hilarious moments of my life, the three men went into the village to buy their suits at separate times, and entered the pool areas at separate times. All three randomly chose identical blue, patterned speedos. I nearly drowned when the last guy showed up! My husband still has his speedo in his underwear drawer and occasionally puts it on for comic effect. 😂

And these bans, taken in the context of related bans on religious clothing, convey the clear intent of those passing the bans.