Nuns cannot wear their habits on our beaches, says deputy mayor of Nice

The deputy mayor of Nice said that both habits and burkinis were banned on local beaches in an interview yesterday on Radio 4

The deputy mayor of Nice has said that nuns wearing habits are no more welcome on his beaches than women wearing burkinis.

Speaking to presenter Edward Stourton on the World at One on BBC Radio 4 yesterday, the Deputy Mayor, Rudy Salles defended the burkini ban and said: “What is the burkini? There is bikini and there is burka and the burka is forbidden. When you go to the beach you wear a bathing suit. You don’t go to the beach as you want. If I want to go on the beach naked it’s forbidden-I cannot.

Doesn’t really matter, the Conseil d’État overturned the burkini ban today.

[quote=Jim Bittermann, Sheena McKenzie and Catherine E. Shoichet, CNN]Mayors do not have the right to ban burkinis, France’s highest administrative court ruled Friday.
The Council of State’s ruling suspends a ban in the town of Villeneuve-Loubet, near Nice, and could affect cities around the country that have prohibited the full-length swimsuit.

More than 30 French towns have banned burkinis, which cover the whole body except for the face, hands and feet.
Officials say the ban on the burkini – worn mostly by Muslim women – was a response to growing terror concerns.
Human rights activists argue that such measures are illegal, and that pushes to outlaw the garment are Islamophobic. …]

WOO!! Good news!

OK so let’s take this to it’s logical conclusion:

Habits are not swimwear. So is the mayor saying that you HAVE to wear western swimwear to the beach? So, if you wear normal clothes because you are just going for a walk on the sand, that is banned?

Or is it the fact that it is a religious garment? So, a priest can’t go either? Or, he can, if he just takes off his collar, so that it looks like a secular garment?

And, since it is now illegal to wear religious clothes to the beach, even if they aren’t swimming clothes, why is it just the beach? Why not all public locations?

I’m glad I’m not that mayor, I wouldn’t like to have to justify this level of illogical thinking :smiley:

Yeah the French may have found an aspect of their push for total secularism that defies any kind of logic unless they’re going to ban all religions outright. Good thing their own high court is saving them from themselves here.

Well I have to admit what the mayor of Nice said, is at least consistent when it comes to treating all religions fairly and not discriminating between them.

But of course, merely treating everyone “equally” does not guarantee morality. A hypothetical law that requires that every citizen, regardless of race, religion, sexuality, etc., gets slapped on the face exactly once on their birthdays, may not be discriminatory, but not morally justifiable, either.

Except there is a difference - habits are a sign of humility.

While the burkini is a manifestation of modesty.

Surely modesty and humility are different, but aren’t they related as well?

There is a major difference. You just can’t see it.

A French appeals court has overturned a ban on the wearing of the Islamic burkini on beaches.


In fact though, people see the burkini as a manifestation of oppressing women. I think that’s what started this whole thing.

Fascinating to see that sumptuary laws aren’t a thing of the past. Whoever says fashion is unimportant isn’t thinking broadly enough. Says the apparel student.

And there’s an argument to possibly be made there, provided it’s actually a form of oppression. But then if that were the case, why would their prohibition apply to nuns too? Or are they now going to say that forcing nuns to wear habits is a form of oppression too?

Both should be allowed. Rediculous.

The burkini should be seen as a way not to suppress women, but to protect them. It covers the women’s bodies so men won’t see them and get all excited and be unable to stop themselves from raping them.

If men can’t stop themselves from raping a woman wearing a standard bathing suit the problem isn’t with the women, it’s with the men. And frankly if seeing a bathing suited woman is enough to set that particular guy off eliminating that particular “temptation” from them isn’t going to stop them from ultimately committing a sex crime.

Yes, it is in actuality from the men’s point of view. To protect men from women. Woman, the Temptress, cannot be allowed to tempt men, even such as to promote impure thoughts. Therefore she has to be completely covered, even her face. And since her eyes are one of the most tempting things about woman, they should be veiled.

Doesn’t the Old Testament say, “The choicest of blessings is a modest wife”?

How about the men protect the women from themselves by I don’t know… not raping them? It’s really not that hard regardless of how “tempting” the women may dress. And if it is hard, you’re the problem and should probably submit yourself to both some form of intense psychological and spiritual counseling. Because you’re not quite right in the head. :thumbsup:

And yes the Old Testament does say that. But we’re not talking about someone’s wife here either. :shrug:

We aren’t?

Why, even the Catholic Church frowns upon “impure thoughts” and “occasions of sin.” Certainly scantily clad women will cause impure thoughts and lust in men. Impure thoughts for men are bad enough, which is way short of rape. Because didn’t Jesus say a man who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit