[csivils]

Claiming that the use of a Burka in an article on modesty has nothing to do with the motivation to wear a Burka is nonsense. That is exactly why it was a poor example.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The Egyptian team was mentioned because they happened to be Olympic competitors -- that's what made them relevant --- and the fact that their full-coverage uniforms didn't apparently interfere with their ability to perform well athletically.

You noted previously that "The rules leave the attire up to the competitors." Isn't that the way it should be? Is it wrong that the Egyptian women's team chose attire did not violate their own sense of propriety?

Besides, the example about the Egyptian woman's uniforms was one paragraph --- the fifth paragraph, with only 2 sentences actually referring to the Egyptians' uniforms --- in an eleven -paragraph article. It was not part of the lede. It was not the overall topic.

Once again, you fault the author for making *his* points instead of *your* points, for writing *his* article instead of *your* article. You want to write an article against Sharia? Have at it. I assure you I'd find many areas of agreement with you.

Anybody who studied "context" and "structure" in middle school Language Arts, could see that this was merely one of several examples in making a point about modest dress and athletic performance, not about Islamic jurisprudence.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Besides, they weren't in "burqas," which are long flowing, enveloping outer garments which cover everything except the eyes. This

`

... is not a burqa. And it doesn't cover much more than the US women's equestrian uniforms.

`

I'm glad they're not in cocktail-napkin-sized bikinis.

You know, just so long as they don't frighten the horses.