By now most everyone has read the news about the
muslim woman who was banned from a public pool in France for having donned a burqini. This is quite ironic, since Fra
nce is very friendly to tolerating muslim extremists, yet bringing a burqini to a public pool? Now THAT'S (apparently) crossing the line! Originally, the woman was just given a hard time back in June, but when the pool officials were reminded that the nations National Assembly was appointing a commission on the very issue of burquas and similiar religious garb, they had to make a point. The next time the woman came to swim in the public pool she was denied access on the grounds that the burqini was a health risk, allegedly containing a large amount of human bacteria from the sweat that comes from wearing more clothing as opposed to hardly any (you know, because we always hear about other people dying from other people's sweat --- j/k).
I, myself, am a Roman Catholic and against pluralism, but more insidious than any formally pronounced religion, is the religion of secularism. It tries to make itself appear to be for the general public, under the false pretense of "the norm" and "tolerance" but instead it set the norm by making laws against cultural traditions whose ideals counter its political objectives. Why is this relative to a discussion on modesty? Secularism is the religion which supports the errors of Communism, which have infiltrated western culture* (Catholic note: just as the
prediction by
Our Lady of Fatima). Sounds like a crazy, chumped up conspiracy theory, does it? Well, think again.
Let's look more closely at this one example of the burqini ban in France.
Who's Behind the Ban:
"
The National Assembly Burqa Commission".
The French National Assembly appointed 32 lawmakers on a fact-finding mission to look at ways of restricting the use of the burqa. The commission is led by Communist MP
Andre Gerin. Gerin called the "burqini" ridiculous and said pool administrators were right.
"We can't allow this. This is proof that there is a political agenda behind such dress," Gerin told Le Parisien.
In other words, modesty is a political agenda, according to a prominent communist in France. Hmmm... maybe so, for one or two people, but what do we know about communism, and its little sister, socialism? Communism was supported by immodest dress --- consciously, when Wilhelm Reich** (**one of the most emotionally dysfuncional personalities in the past few hundred years) first coined the phrase, "sexual revolution", and communism adopted the term. Reich explained that in order for a political revolution to occur, the regime must target the minds of women. Women tend to be harder to persuade than men, but most especially the religious-minded woman who feared God. Reich did experiments on how to persuade these such women, and he found that if you put a strong-minded, religious woman with a group of people with loose morality, that eventually the strong, moral women will eventually begin to losen their morality bit by bit. The same thing is accomplished in a society when you establish a norm that is immoral. This allowed for the lessening of the idea of the traditional homemaker, who also rears and educates their children and instills within them a sense of morality based on God as the Higher Authority. This is contrary to communism, who wishes to determine the morality of its people by controlling what is taught and how, and then steering it towards only philosophies that are supportive of its political agenda. Introduce the exploitation of human sexuality via fashion trends and you ultimately do away with the traditional roles of women by slowly convincing society that such a role of the homemaker is oppressive and unsatisfying to the average, intelligent woman. Marriage is no longer sacred, but a man-made institution hardly necessary for the family unit, when the government can take care of families. Consuming everything in sight, relying more and more on the governement, and introducing secularism as the intelligent religion is the way to promote communism. The irreplaceable role of the mother and homemaker takes a second seat (to put it lightly) to the ideas of feminism --- women equal in everything to men --- and license in sexuality is the new rule to govern the ideas of what should constitute family, not what has been tried and true to form strong, healthy families.
It doesn't surprise me that
Andre Gerin of the French National Assembly would see a mere modest swimsuit as a threat to his political agenda. He's done his history homework.
Unfortunately for him and Sarchozy, if the French wish to call him on this, it will be all too easy. His ideas apparently threaten the French scuba diving industry, since almost all beginning classes take place in pools, with students in wet suits (a burqini is just like a wet suit with a skirt and hood, only lighter in material that a wet suit).
I phoned the world's largest scuba diving course provider,
PADI* (*PADI certifies about as many students as all other scuba diving instructions in the world combined), PADI Scuba Diving and spoke with an instructor. Beginner classes are done in a swimming pool, with full gear (that i
ncludest the wet suit). When I asked the instructor if there is a hygiene issue, she replied, "there is absolutely no hygiene risk for a person wearing a (scuba diving) suit" and also said, "...(the average pool) as enough enough chlorine to kill an elephant."
So, what is the real issue? The issue is a political agenda towards secularism. Sarchozy preached "
tolerance" before he came into power, but it was just talk. The only
tolerance he is for is that the French people (those who are not supportive of communism, and who have at the very least, a filial fear of God) must tolerate his agenda, and worship the state.
Fashion isn't merely about making an individual statement, but it is a social statement. Most people might not wish to ante up to that fact, perhaps it's too deep for those who idolize designers, but it is still a fact. Fashion forms (and deforms) society, and we contribute to this by how we present ourselves more strongly than most any vote we may ever cast. While an American, for example, might argue that she lives in a free country and should therefore be able to decide for herself what is best for her to where, I agree, but choose wisely. Immodesty lessens your freedom in the end, both as an individual, and even then contributes to that loss of freedom as a society. License is not the same as freedom, as it actually opposes freedom.
When Gerin told Le Parisien,"We can't allow this. This is proof that there is a political agenda behind such dress," he's essentially saying that 'we (the government of France) will tolerate your religion, but NOT the values that are inheritant to that religion'. In other words, secularism is, infact, the values to which one must ascribe to be a law-abiding citizen. Sounds threatening? It should, because secularism IS a threat to the citizen's freedom. Values come from a person's most fundamental beliefs, whether or not they are recognized formally as a religion. This is why secularism is infact a religion being increasingly imposed by many governments today. It is a political agenda, and while most don't even recognize this it, in continues to grow right under their noses.
This is a major
FAIL on the part of Gerin, the commission he has been permitted to lead, and the entire National Assembly. They've caused a black mark on the eye of France to the world, and they have Nicholas Sarchozy to thank.
“In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity." OK, so in other words, it is impossible to have a social life with people who share your values if those values are religious? Or does the fact that a woman refuses to expose herself in public a relinquishing of her identity? Is Sarkozy sayin
g that the more modest a woman is the less identity she has? That's NONSENSE. Utter nonsense. This is just about communist and communist sympathizers (socialists) having something in common: the threat of the strong, modest woman.
What Sarchozy and the rest of the communists and communist sympathizers are saying is: We don't think you should be 'oppressed' by
your religion, unless it is secularism.' Sorry, Sarchozy, but another, major FAIL. Fashion is NOT a virtue. While the fashion industry might be a tremendous industry, this isn't even about the worship of money, but of a government that oppresses people all while ironically purporting to support greater cultural and religious "
tolerance".
