Point of fact: secularists cannot distinguish between good religion and bad religion. Secularist ideologues regress to the narrow minded view that all religions are bad. Is it any wonder that French politicians are practically immobilized by their grey worldview that paralyzes and prevents them from being proactive and able to root out real threats? The French have lost their political and social acumen and no longer appreciate intellectual nuance. The French aptitude for cultural cuisine has been fouled by junkfood. French secularists cannot tell the difference between a rock and a potato.
Thankfully, the French state is populated by more than just the ideologues who have dragged her into an abyss of confusion and naiveté. There are among the citizens of the hexagonal state a remnant of tradition-minded folk, mostly Catholics, who know well enough that France is in an impossible situation with regards to competing "virtues". On the one hand, the well known four: liberté, égalité, fraternité, laïcité. On the other, religious freedom, which is seen, it seems, more as a freedom-to-worship-but-keep-your-religion-behind-closed-doors-and-out-of-the-public-square kind of condescending nod to religious folk. Apparently, the Republic of France is little different than the People's Republic of China.
G.K. Chesterton once said,“When you break the big laws, you do not get liberty; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws.” Indeed, we get thousands of lesser laws. How true this is in an age that has cast off God’s moral vision (the big laws). We don’t get fewer laws; we get more—a lot more.—Msgr. Charles Pope.
loi no 2004-228 du 15 mars 2004 encadrant, en application du principe de laïcité, le port de signes ou de tenues manifestant une appartenance religieuse dans les écoles, collèges et lycées publics
Law #2004-228 of March 15, 2004, concerning, as an application of the principle of the separation of church and state, the wearing of symbols or garb which show religious affiliation in public primary and secondary schools
The law "does not mention any particular symbol, and thus bans all Christian (veil, signs), Muslim (veil, signs), Sikh (turban, signs) Jewish and other religions' signs".—Wikipedia
Recently, the burkini has caused some French secularist ideologues to erupt in a spittle flecked nutty, as Father Z might say. The burkini is a modest form of beach or swimming attire that muslim women have been wearing.
|How dare these nuns wear their habits on the beach? | Amry|
Granted, burkinis could be a backdoor attempt to circumvent Law #2004-228. Does the burkini represent a camel's nose attempt to do an end run around their precious law? Secularist ideologues, militant feminists and perhaps a few balanced critics who likely see the burkini as an instrument of control of women would probably answer 'yes'.
There is always more goodness in the world than there appears to be, because goodness is of its very nature modest and retiring.—Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I realize that each time the question of modesty has come up on this blog there are some readers who want to dismiss such discussions and emphasize the right of people to dress as they please. They believe that any sexual temptation aroused is almost wholly the fault of the viewer, not the one wearing the attire.
Modesty should avoid excessively burdening people. It seeks a middle ground wherein the one who dresses and the other who sees share responsibility. The one wearing the attire should not be burdened with difficult requirements, nor should the viewer be burdened by facing undue temptation. Mutual charity and concern are the goals.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of modesty as protecting the mystery, chastity, and dignity of the human person.
Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. … Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. … Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet (CCC 2521-2522).
[...] I have found in the past that discussions about modesty are often difficult to have in a way that is helpful or charitable. Reasonable people may differ on the details of modesty. Modesty does involve a range of options, influenced by circumstances and the sensibilities of cultures. I have articulated here that I see no need for tiny bikinis in this sport and that I think more modest attire is important. If you disagree, please explain the relationship you see of the brief bikini to the sport, considering that men in general and women from other cultures who compete do not see the need to wear so little. If you agree, please remember in your comments that the imputation of motives to individuals is a sketchy and usually uncharitable thing to do. Everyone, please use care when commenting.