Ha! It's funny because my beachwear is closer to the burkini than a traditional bikini. Not because I am Muslim--I'm just a little chubby and have super pale easily burned skin. So I wear a swim skirt, a tankini top, a rash guard, a hat, and sunglasses. And I'm an atheist. Lol. I can't imagine why a very modest bathing suit would need to be banned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A government that forbids you from wearing a burkini is as bad as a government that demands that you wear one.

Given your opinion, would you mind pointing me to your post protesting the gross injustice to females in those countries where they are forced to cover up? (I mean, since you're equally upset about that...)

NP here, but I think most posters on this forum would agree that no external force (religion or state) should dictate what a woman wears. That's a given.

Sure, that would be best. However, I happen to think it's worse when the state forces all of its female citizens to cover up in an obvious symbol of their subjugation than when the state forces a few of its female citizens NOT to wear the symbol of subjugation. Call me crazy!

I am neither a Muslim, nor have ever gone to beach without a mainstream beach worthy attire. However, I happen to think it is equally bad for the state forces all of its female citizens to cover up in an obvious symbol of their subjugation or the state forces all of its female citizens to strip in the name of security. Call me crazy!

Which country is forcing all of its female citizens to strip?

It is so easy to create a "symbol of something" in your own head without understanding another culture and what their symbolism is. You do not see it this way, but I know many Muslims women who would consider being asked to take off their traditional clothing on gun point as a symbol of "stripping". Ask the Muslims.

So you're not going to answer the question?

Did you read the story and see the photos of the Nice policemen forcing a woman to remove her tunic?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A government that forbids you from wearing a burkini is as bad as a government that demands that you wear one.

Given your opinion, would you mind pointing me to your post protesting the gross injustice to females in those countries where they are forced to cover up? (I mean, since you're equally upset about that...)

NP here, but I think most posters on this forum would agree that no external force (religion or state) should dictate what a woman wears. That's a given.

Sure, that would be best. However, I happen to think it's worse when the state forces all of its female citizens to cover up in an obvious symbol of their subjugation than when the state forces a few of its female citizens NOT to wear the symbol of subjugation. Call me crazy!

I am neither a Muslim, nor have ever gone to beach without a mainstream beach worthy attire. However, I happen to think it is equally bad for the state forces all of its female citizens to cover up in an obvious symbol of their subjugation or the state forces all of its female citizens to strip in the name of security. Call me crazy!

Which country is forcing all of its female citizens to strip?

It is so easy to create a "symbol of something" in your own head without understanding another culture and what their symbolism is. You do not see it this way, but I know many Muslims women who would consider being asked to take off their traditional clothing on gun point as a symbol of "stripping". Ask the Muslims.

One more thing - My mom (in her late 60s) has gone to beaches wearing Salwar and Chunni (look up in google). She decides to go that way; she considers western clothing too reveling. I can tell you based on knowing her that if any police officer asks her to take off her Chunni or Salwar, she would be mortified and feel violated. In most counties a male asking a women do any of these would be considered sexual harassment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A government that forbids you from wearing a burkini is as bad as a government that demands that you wear one.

Given your opinion, would you mind pointing me to your post protesting the gross injustice to females in those countries where they are forced to cover up? (I mean, since you're equally upset about that...)

NP here, but I think most posters on this forum would agree that no external force (religion or state) should dictate what a woman wears. That's a given.

Sure, that would be best. However, I happen to think it's worse when the state forces all of its female citizens to cover up in an obvious symbol of their subjugation than when the state forces a few of its female citizens NOT to wear the symbol of subjugation. Call me crazy!

I am neither a Muslim, nor have ever gone to beach without a mainstream beach worthy attire. However, I happen to think it is equally bad for the state forces all of its female citizens to cover up in an obvious symbol of their subjugation or the state forces all of its female citizens to strip in the name of security. Call me crazy!

Which country is forcing all of its female citizens to strip?

It is so easy to create a "symbol of something" in your own head without understanding another culture and what their symbolism is. You do not see it this way, but I know many Muslims women who would consider being asked to take off their traditional clothing on gun point as a symbol of "stripping". Ask the Muslims.

So you're not going to answer the question?

It is racism, pure and simple. A woman or man who was wearing long sleeves and long pants would not have been forced to remove their clothes.

Dont think they made her strip. If she is that religous to wear a loose head to toe bathing suit she would have left instead of taking off a layer of it. As a woman i seriously dont understand how a woman could be forced to wear attire in the name of a religon that favors men. The only distinction from american male and femal abusive relationships where men tell a woman to cover herself and not dress like a slut is that it is not religous like this womans choice for wearing this suit. Christian women arent frced to wear habits to the beach because its in their religion that none other but their man should look at their hair and skin. Also id be more worried about the child sex abuse by the economic migrants at the french camps than this irrelevant story

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A government that forbids you from wearing a burkini is as bad as a government that demands that you wear one.

Given your opinion, would you mind pointing me to your post protesting the gross injustice to females in those countries where they are forced to cover up? (I mean, since you're equally upset about that...)

NP here, but I think most posters on this forum would agree that no external force (religion or state) should dictate what a woman wears. That's a given.

Sure, that would be best. However, I happen to think it's worse when the state forces all of its female citizens to cover up in an obvious symbol of their subjugation than when the state forces a few of its female citizens NOT to wear the symbol of subjugation. Call me crazy!

I am neither a Muslim, nor have ever gone to beach without a mainstream beach worthy attire. However, I happen to think it is equally bad for the state forces all of its female citizens to cover up in an obvious symbol of their subjugation or the state forces all of its female citizens to strip in the name of security. Call me crazy!

Which country is forcing all of its female citizens to strip?

It is so easy to create a "symbol of something" in your own head without understanding another culture and what their symbolism is. You do not see it this way, but I know many Muslims women who would consider being asked to take off their traditional clothing on gun point as a symbol of "stripping". Ask the Muslims.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks: step out of religious fanaticism and into modernity. That goes for you too, liberal Presbyterians and Lutherans!

This is not about religion, it is about terrorism and our way of life being threatened. Stop trying to sugar coat it. I'm sure the citizens of France would appreciate your compassion with the emotional baggage they now carry due to the terrorist attacks perpetrated by Radical Islam towards their society. I am also confident you will come back and say they deserved those attacks for repressing the Muslim population in France, and you would be "full of it" for propagating that as well. The Muslims in France created their little communities and are very happy with it, otherwise they would have chosen to assimilate and join the rest of society sometime ago. France is not the bad guy here.

Exactly. Nuns do not expect or desire or force non-nuns to wear their uniforms. Nuns have been around in France for over 1000 years. If they don't want to assimilate then there are other places to live.

You are assuming that all Muslim women are being forced to wear burqas. I have no idea if this is true since I haven't interviewed every single Muslim women. I think it's hard for non Muslim women to imagine wearing such a thing, and given a choice, we'd never choose to. But, I have no idea if some Muslim women truly do choose to wear it of their own free will.

Some people are saying it's ok to ban the burqa because of what it symbolizes. The swatstika is a symbol of hate, violence, and the killing of millions of people. Yet, people in France can get these tattoos, and freely show them. Why aren't these things banned?

It is definitely a double standard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A government that forbids you from wearing a burkini is as bad as a government that demands that you wear one.

Given your opinion, would you mind pointing me to your post protesting the gross injustice to females in those countries where they are forced to cover up? (I mean, since you're equally upset about that...)

NP here, but I think most posters on this forum would agree that no external force (religion or state) should dictate what a woman wears. That's a given.

Sure, that would be best. However, I happen to think it's worse when the state forces all of its female citizens to cover up in an obvious symbol of their subjugation than when the state forces a few of its female citizens NOT to wear the symbol of subjugation. Call me crazy!

This. Agree one trillion percent.

Still doesn't make it right just because one is less worse than the other.

Agree. But note that multiple PPs were saying that both were equally bad. They're not equally bad.

OK, not equal, but bad enough. I have been to Nice. I wouldn't want them to tell me that I *had* to go topless on the beach. Sometimes, I see non Muslim women in US beaches covered up. There are various reasons why: modesty, sensitive to the sun, etc... So, these women won't be able to cover up when they are in France anymore? If it's just Burqas, then it's a bigoted law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks: step out of religious fanaticism and into modernity. That goes for you too, liberal Presbyterians and Lutherans!

This is not about religion, it is about terrorism and our way of life being threatened. Stop trying to sugar coat it. I'm sure the citizens of France would appreciate your compassion with the emotional baggage they now carry due to the terrorist attacks perpetrated by Radical Islam towards their society. I am also confident you will come back and say they deserved those attacks for repressing the Muslim population in France, and you would be "full of it" for propagating that as well. The Muslims in France created their little communities and are very happy with it, otherwise they would have chosen to assimilate and join the rest of society sometime ago. France is not the bad guy here.

Exactly. Nuns do not expect or desire or force non-nuns to wear their uniforms. Nuns have been around in France for over 1000 years. If they don't want to assimilate then there are other places to live.

Couldn't agree more. Well said.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A government that forbids you from wearing a burkini is as bad as a government that demands that you wear one.

Given your opinion, would you mind pointing me to your post protesting the gross injustice to females in those countries where they are forced to cover up? (I mean, since you're equally upset about that...)

NP here, but I think most posters on this forum would agree that no external force (religion or state) should dictate what a woman wears. That's a given.

Sure, that would be best. However, I happen to think it's worse when the state forces all of its female citizens to cover up in an obvious symbol of their subjugation than when the state forces a few of its female citizens NOT to wear the symbol of subjugation. Call me crazy!

I am neither a Muslim, nor have ever gone to beach without a mainstream beach worthy attire. However, I happen to think it is equally bad for the state forces all of its female citizens to cover up in an obvious symbol of their subjugation or the state forces all of its female citizens to strip in the name of security. Call me crazy!

Which country is forcing all of its female citizens to strip?

Okay, you're crazy?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A government that forbids you from wearing a burkini is as bad as a government that demands that you wear one.

Given your opinion, would you mind pointing me to your post protesting the gross injustice to females in those countries where they are forced to cover up? (I mean, since you're equally upset about that...)

NP here, but I think most posters on this forum would agree that no external force (religion or state) should dictate what a woman wears. That's a given.

Sure, that would be best. However, I happen to think it's worse when the state forces all of its female citizens to cover up in an obvious symbol of their subjugation than when the state forces a few of its female citizens NOT to wear the symbol of subjugation. Call me crazy!

I am neither a Muslim, nor have ever gone to beach without a mainstream beach worthy attire. However, I happen to think it is equally bad for the state forces all of its female citizens to cover up in an obvious symbol of their subjugation or the state forces all of its female citizens to strip in the name of security. Call me crazy!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks: step out of religious fanaticism and into modernity. That goes for you too, liberal Presbyterians and Lutherans!

This is not about religion, it is about terrorism and our way of life being threatened. Stop trying to sugar coat it. I'm sure the citizens of France would appreciate your compassion with the emotional baggage they now carry due to the terrorist attacks perpetrated by Radical Islam towards their society. I am also confident you will come back and say they deserved those attacks for repressing the Muslim population in France, and you would be "full of it" for propagating that as well. The Muslims in France created their little communities and are very happy with it, otherwise they would have chosen to assimilate and join the rest of society sometime ago. France is not the bad guy here.

Exactly. Nuns do not expect or desire or force non-nuns to wear their uniforms. Nuns have been around in France for over 1000 years. If they don't want to assimilate then there are other places to live.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A government that forbids you from wearing a burkini is as bad as a government that demands that you wear one.

Given your opinion, would you mind pointing me to your post protesting the gross injustice to females in those countries where they are forced to cover up? (I mean, since you're equally upset about that...)

NP here, but I think most posters on this forum would agree that no external force (religion or state) should dictate what a woman wears. That's a given.

Sure, that would be best. However, I happen to think it's worse when the state forces all of its female citizens to cover up in an obvious symbol of their subjugation than when the state forces a few of its female citizens NOT to wear the symbol of subjugation. Call me crazy!

This. Agree one trillion percent.

Still doesn't make it right just because one is less worse than the other.

Agree. But note that multiple PPs were saying that both were equally bad. They're not equally bad.