"Pork or Nothing" : How Politics intervenes children's lunch

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Apologies Ostro, but given the actual content of the discussion, and your rapid, rabid responses, I am more reminded of this than inclined to take your arguments seriously. You clearly have a bias, and you just as clearly cannot accept that you're kind of barking up the wrong tree here. That's ok. You keep on hatin' if that's what makes you happy. Or whatever.

Repeating for ref: No one demanded halal meals, the actions being taken are being done so out of bigotry and bias, not to level the field, and it is being done at the expense of children, who are being used in the political machinations of some rather nasty pieces of work, from what I've seen. Pity.

EDIT: typo'd name, goddammit fething s key grr argh

[The Alexanderians]

Why should purely secular matter?

Because france is a secular country.

So it should ignore things it doesn't like? Things that don't fit into it's narrow world view and narrative? Sounds familiar.

[Valystria]

Vegans are not a religious minority (aside from religious vegans). This is about a secular issue and the thirty years of religious privileges that were preceeding it.

The comparison was about violence surrounding a policy change. There is nothing odd about that.
I did disapprove of the abortion comparison.

Only having a reasonable option was not 'thirty years of religious privileges'. No one was asking for halal foods, you may note, if you went back and read the articles and read what was actually stated, and took in the additional information that has been offered by other posters. I didn't get anywhere in those articles that anyone was whining loudly to have special privs, simply an alternative that had been offered, without any one group in mind being as it covered several groups, religious and otherwise in nature, prior to the rather biased and agenda-driven decision by local magistrates trying to create a divisive and unpleasant atmosphere to the affected minority groups.

Now, if you can't see how that might be problematic, I'm not sure that any discussion to be had here can help you out. But the bottom line is that in some small areas, where they have enough influence to get away with it, some people are deliberately changing existing balances so as to make things less welcoming for minority groups they personally oppose. And some of us find this to be rather disagreeable, all things considered.

If someone were to mandate that no more vegetarian-friendly options would be offered in school lunches, would that grab your attention? Meat, meat, and more meat - all meat, all the time? Why? Because 'Murica, dammit. Or something along those lines. How about 'if you didn't hunt it down yourself, you can't eat it'? Too far out there? Hrm. 'You can only eat things that are of the same color block as yourself - no more dark meat for you whiteys, and vice versa'?

Yes. Yes I did get progressively ridiculous with those, glad you noticed. I would imagine that's a strong clue that it is past my bedtime, but seriously. How hard is it to grasp that they are breaking something that wasn't broken previously, and folks were doing just fine with? As Gallo pointed out, when the gov indicates people can discriminate, mob mentality and action is not far behind. Chalk it up to that unfortunate human nature, as mentioned previously, and the whole us vs them bit. It's a thing. You may want to read up on it.

And none of this would have happened had the privileges not already been there.

I'm not in favor of there not being an alternative, nor is valystria, as we have repeated dozens and dozens of times.
No matter how much you stomp your feet and say otherwise, what we are opposed to is a demand for an alternative meal based on religious grounds.
We're fine with secular rationales to provide an alternative meal.

"We should provide variety in case some students don't want pork."
-Fine by me.

"We should provide variety because MOOZLEMS GAWD DEMANDS IT."
-Fuck that, not one inch. No funds, get out.

Except as it has been explained to you and Valystria, several times, France is not doing anything about secularism. This is not about secularism. No matter how many times you stomp your own feet and think it is. It is not. It has been showed to you already, over and over again. This policy is not about secularism.

Except is.
But it is inconsistently applied secularism.

I honestly don't care if their religion makes them incapable of functioning in society as well as other people do.
However, you are more than welcome to argue for an alternative meal on secular grounds, as i've stated repeatedly.

The state isn't forcing them to do anything. It has merely ceased to assist them in practicing their religion. It hasn't decided to ban them from bringing their own food. It hasn't decided to demand they eat the pork. It hasn't decided to force them to do anything at all. It has merely ceased to assist them any further.

If people actually gave a fuck about these children, as i've gone over previously, they'd argue for a meal on secular grounds.
Instead they're constantly demanding the state accommodate a religion and use tax payer funds to assist people in being able to carry out their religious practices.
No.
Sorry. Not one inch. Not even going to consider it. It's rejected out of hand. And the french government agrees.

If these people gave a fuck about children, they'd unite with others and demand a secular alternative meal.

They don't really give a fuck. What they care about is having the state accomodate their religion. The children aren't just pawns of the far-right in this issue.

I'm sorry then. I just see things differently. And to me, personally, I just can't imagine what a young French boy is going to do now with this policy, entering the school, believing very, very strongly in his god, and finding he must choose between his religion or eating something. I know the secular alternative meal is a possibility to be implemented, but just on the surface of it, from a prima facie perspective, does this sound moral to you? What do you think the Muslim boy should reasonably do? Leave his religion just like that?

I wish I had done that as a child.

What we should be doing is encouraging children to question their religious upbringings instead of enabling it.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Apologies Otro, but given the actual content of the discussion, and your rapid, rabid responses, I am more reminded of this than inclined to take your arguments seriously. You clearly have a bias, and you just as clearly cannot accept that you're kind of barking up the wrong tree here. That's ok. You keep on hatin' if that's what makes you happy. Or whatever.

Repeating for ref: No one demanded halal meals, the actions being taken are being done so out of bigotry and bias, not to level the field, and it is being done at the expense of children, who are being used in the political machinations of some rather nasty pieces of work, from what I've seen. Pity.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[Divitaen]

I'm sorry then. I just see things differently. And to me, personally, I just can't imagine what a young French boy is going to do now with this policy, entering the school, believing very, very strongly in his god, and finding he must choose between his religion or eating something. I know the secular alternative meal is a possibility to be implemented, but just on the surface of it, from a prima facie perspective, does this sound moral to you? What do you think the Muslim boy should reasonably do? Leave his religion just like that?

He should gather with other students and demand an alternative meal for secular reasons.

I doubt it would work though, because the alternative meal would have to exclude pork and would therefore include students who don't want pork, who would be overwhelmingly Muslim and Jewish. So its effectively the same thing. Plus, if they allow "secular" alternative meals, they must literally allow any meal preference by anyone regardless of whether its faith-based or not.

[Galloism]

Apologies Otro, but given the actual content of the discussion, and your rapid, rabid responses, I am more reminded of this than inclined to take your arguments seriously. You clearly have a bias, and you just as clearly cannot accept that you're kind of barking up the wrong tree here. That's ok. You keep on hatin' if that's what makes you happy. Or whatever.

Repeating for ref: No one demanded halal meals, the actions being taken are being done so out of bigotry and bias, not to level the field, and it is being done at the expense of children, who are being used in the political machinations of some rather nasty pieces of work, from what I've seen. Pity.

That thing is hideously adorable.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Apologies Otro, but given the actual content of the discussion, and your rapid, rabid responses, I am more reminded of this than inclined to take your arguments seriously. You clearly have a bias, and you just as clearly cannot accept that you're kind of barking up the wrong tree here. That's ok. You keep on hatin' if that's what makes you happy. Or whatever.

Repeating for ref: No one demanded halal meals, the actions being taken are being done so out of bigotry and bias, not to level the field, and it is being done at the expense of children, who are being used in the political machinations of some rather nasty pieces of work, from what I've seen. Pity.

That thing is hideously adorable.

Sounds like a yapping Chihuahua or a squeaky toy.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Only having a reasonable option was not 'thirty years of religious privileges'. No one was asking for halal foods, you may note, if you went back and read the articles and read what was actually stated, and took in the additional information that has been offered by other posters. I didn't get anywhere in those articles that anyone was whining loudly to have special privs, simply an alternative that had been offered, without any one group in mind being as it covered several groups, religious and otherwise in nature, prior to the rather biased and agenda-driven decision by local magistrates trying to create a divisive and unpleasant atmosphere to the affected minority groups.

Now, if you can't see how that might be problematic, I'm not sure that any discussion to be had here can help you out. But the bottom line is that in some small areas, where they have enough influence to get away with it, some people are deliberately changing existing balances so as to make things less welcoming for minority groups they personally oppose. And some of us find this to be rather disagreeable, all things considered.

If someone were to mandate that no more vegetarian-friendly options would be offered in school lunches, would that grab your attention? Meat, meat, and more meat - all meat, all the time? Why? Because 'Murica, dammit. Or something along those lines. How about 'if you didn't hunt it down yourself, you can't eat it'? Too far out there? Hrm. 'You can only eat things that are of the same color block as yourself - no more dark meat for you whiteys, and vice versa'?

Yes. Yes I did get progressively ridiculous with those, glad you noticed. I would imagine that's a strong clue that it is past my bedtime, but seriously. How hard is it to grasp that they are breaking something that wasn't broken previously, and folks were doing just fine with? As Gallo pointed out, when the gov indicates people can discriminate, mob mentality and action is not far behind. Chalk it up to that unfortunate human nature, as mentioned previously, and the whole us vs them bit. It's a thing. You may want to read up on it.

And none of this would have happened had the privileges not already been there.

Except as it has been explained to you and Valystria, several times, France is not doing anything about secularism. This is not about secularism. No matter how many times you stomp your own feet and think it is. It is not. It has been showed to you already, over and over again. This policy is not about secularism.

Except is.
But it is inconsistently applied secularism.

I'm sorry then. I just see things differently. And to me, personally, I just can't imagine what a young French boy is going to do now with this policy, entering the school, believing very, very strongly in his god, and finding he must choose between his religion or eating something. I know the secular alternative meal is a possibility to be implemented, but just on the surface of it, from a prima facie perspective, does this sound moral to you? What do you think the Muslim boy should reasonably do? Leave his religion just like that?

I wish I had done that as a child.

What we should be doing is encouraging children to question their religious upbringings instead of enabling it.

Except it isn't. As it's been said by quite a few detractors of this policy in France.

[The Alexanderians]

That thing is hideously adorable.

Sounds like a yapping Chihuahua or a squeaky toy.

I DEMAND ONE!

[Ostroeuropa]

Apologies Otro, but given the actual content of the discussion, and your rapid, rabid responses, I am more reminded of this than inclined to take your arguments seriously. You clearly have a bias, and you just as clearly cannot accept that you're kind of barking up the wrong tree here. That's ok. You keep on hatin' if that's what makes you happy. Or whatever.

Repeating for ref: No one demanded halal meals, the actions being taken are being done so out of bigotry and bias, not to level the field, and it is being done at the expense of children, who are being used in the political machinations of some rather nasty pieces of work, from what I've seen. Pity.

I've never denied any of that. I'm only saying that supplying an alternative meal for religious rationales cannot be tolerated.

[Ostroeuropa]

He should gather with other students and demand an alternative meal for secular reasons.

I doubt it would work though, because the alternative meal would have to exclude pork and would therefore include students who don't want pork, who would be overwhelmingly Muslim and Jewish. So its effectively the same thing. Plus, if they allow "secular" alternative meals, they must literally allow any meal preference by anyone regardless of whether its faith-based or not.

Get vegetarians on board and you'll likely have a coallition willing to help them get a veggie meal.

[Valystria]

Apologies Otro, but given the actual content of the discussion, and your rapid, rabid responses, I am more reminded of this than inclined to take your arguments seriously. You clearly have a bias, and you just as clearly cannot accept that you're kind of barking up the wrong tree here. That's ok. You keep on hatin' if that's what makes you happy. Or whatever.

Repeating for ref: No one demanded halal meals, the actions being taken are being done so out of bigotry and bias, not to level the field, and it is being done at the expense of children, who are being used in the political machinations of some rather nasty pieces of work, from what I've seen. Pity.

I've never denied any of that. I'm only saying that supplying an alternative meal for religious rationales cannot be tolerated.

A secular state could not do that.
A pluralistic one could. It is important for the critics of secularism to make that distinction.

[The Alexanderians]

I've never denied any of that. I'm only saying that supplying an alternative meal for religious rationales cannot be tolerated.

A secular state could not do that.
A pluralistic one could. It is important for the critics of secularism to make that distinction.

So you have come this far and still you understand nothing. Secularism isn't that as we have told you repeatedly.

[Ostroeuropa]

We've never said we're opposed to an alternative meal. Only that we're opposed to religious rationales for it since it would amount to taxpayer money being used to assist people in practicing their religion.

I think it's fairly clear that the people who can't see that are just emotionally arguing and not using rationality.

[The Alexanderians]

Apologies Otro, but given the actual content of the discussion, and your rapid, rabid responses, I am more reminded of this than inclined to take your arguments seriously. You clearly have a bias, and you just as clearly cannot accept that you're kind of barking up the wrong tree here. That's ok. You keep on hatin' if that's what makes you happy. Or whatever.

Repeating for ref: No one demanded halal meals, the actions being taken are being done so out of bigotry and bias, not to level the field, and it is being done at the expense of children, who are being used in the political machinations of some rather nasty pieces of work, from what I've seen. Pity.

I've never denied any of that. I'm only saying that supplying an alternative meal for religious rationales cannot be tolerated.

Why not?

[Ostroeuropa]

A secular state could not do that.
A pluralistic one could. It is important for the critics of secularism to make that distinction.

So you have come this far and still you understand nothing. Secularism isn't that as we have told you repeatedly.

Do we need to crack out the definitions again?

[Galloism]

We've never said we're opposed to an alternative meal. Only that we're opposed to religious rationales for it since it would amount to taxpayer money being used to assist people in practicing their religion.

What about the link Gauthier shared that seems to indicate students are not permitted to bring lunch from home?

Or how about the fact that the alternative they were asking for seems to be slightly cheaper than the meal they would have otherwise been given?

[The Alexanderians]

We've never said we're opposed to an alternative meal. Only that we're opposed to religious rationales for it since it would amount to taxpayer money being used to assist people in practicing their religion.

I think it's fairly clear that the people who can't see that are just emotionally arguing and not using rationality.

So what?

[Ostroeuropa]

I've never denied any of that. I'm only saying that supplying an alternative meal for religious rationales cannot be tolerated.

Why not?

Because it amounts to the state agreeing to use tax payer money to assist someone practice their religion.

[USHALLNOTPASS]

Why woud this even occur to someone? Like, who wakes up one morning, and thinks, "Hmm, this town sure has a bunch'a dirty Muslims crawlin' 'round. How's bout I starve 'em outta here! THAT'LL SHOW THOSE MOTHERFUCKERS AND THEIR FUCKING MOHAMMED! HEE-HEE!"

Seriously, dick move, some French people. Dick. Move.

we love letting the big guy stick it to the muslims, eh?

[/sarcasm]

[Ostroeuropa]

We've never said we're opposed to an alternative meal. Only that we're opposed to religious rationales for it since it would amount to taxpayer money being used to assist people in practicing their religion.

What about the link Gauthier shared that seems to indicate students are not permitted to bring lunch from home?

I'd need a more firm source. But if it's the case, then obviously i'm opposed to that aspect of the policy.

[Valystria]

A secular state could not do that.
A pluralistic one could. It is important for the critics of secularism to make that distinction.

So you have come this far and still you understand nothing. Secularism isn't that as we have told you repeatedly.

You are mistaken.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/secular

Not connected with religious or spiritual matters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism

Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people. Another manifestation of secularism is the view that public activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be uninfluenced by religious beliefs and/or practices.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

We've never said we're opposed to an alternative meal. Only that we're opposed to religious rationales for it since it would amount to taxpayer money being used to assist people in practicing their religion.

What about the link Gauthier shared that seems to indicate students are not permitted to bring lunch from home?

Or the many times it has been said that the alternative of a vegetarian dish won't be in place in towns where National Front is the leading party in power?

[Lavan Tiri]

Apologies Otro, but given the actual content of the discussion, and your rapid, rabid responses, I am more reminded of this than inclined to take your arguments seriously. You clearly have a bias, and you just as clearly cannot accept that you're kind of barking up the wrong tree here. That's ok. You keep on hatin' if that's what makes you happy. Or whatever.

Repeating for ref: No one demanded halal meals, the actions being taken are being done so out of bigotry and bias, not to level the field, and it is being done at the expense of children, who are being used in the political machinations of some rather nasty pieces of work, from what I've seen. Pity.

Apologies Otro, but given the actual content of the discussion, and your rapid, rabid responses, I am more reminded of this than inclined to take your arguments seriously. You clearly have a bias, and you just as clearly cannot accept that you're kind of barking up the wrong tree here. That's ok. You keep on hatin' if that's what makes you happy. Or whatever.

Repeating for ref: No one demanded halal meals, the actions being taken are being done so out of bigotry and bias, not to level the field, and it is being done at the expense of children, who are being used in the political machinations of some rather nasty pieces of work, from what I've seen. Pity.

I've never denied any of that. I'm only saying that supplying an alternative meal for religious rationales cannot be tolerated.

Why not?

And why can't these schools just have two option of food? Even my shitty Missouri high school manages to have two options (chicken and beef, burgers and corn puppies, etc) to accommodate, y'know, some people not liking some foods.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

We've never said we're opposed to an alternative meal. Only that we're opposed to religious rationales for it since it would amount to taxpayer money being used to assist people in practicing their religion.

I think it's fairly clear that the people who can't see that are just emotionally arguing and not using rationality.

Why hello Mr Pot. Have you met Mr Kettle? You have so much in common, after all. -_-