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

[Galloism]

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.

And how about the fact that turkey sausage is actually cheaper than most pork products, so the alternative actually probably saved the school a very small amount of money?

[Valystria]

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 expenses do not matter.

[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.

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

Nath, you've expressly said you aren't considering the substance of the argument.
You've contributed precisely nothing so far except attacks on the posters.
It's not a matter of pot and kettle.
I'm making arguments.
You're making cattle noises.

[Galloism]

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 expenses do not matter.

It cannot be the government "spending money to support your religion" if, by accommodating your needs, the government actually saves money.

[Ostroeuropa]

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

And how about the fact that turkey sausage is actually cheaper than most pork products, so the alternative actually probably saved the school a very small amount of money?

The extra expense doesn't matter. Only that the money isn't spent on assisting someone in practicing their religion.

[Valystria]

The expenses do not matter.

It cannot be the government "spending money to support your religion" if, by accommodating your needs, the government actually saves money.

It doesn't matter if the government saves money by accommodating religious needs. Religions must be left out.

[Galloism]

And how about the fact that turkey sausage is actually cheaper than most pork products, so the alternative actually probably saved the school a very small amount of money?

The extra expense doesn't matter. Only that the money isn't spent on assisting someone in practicing their religion.

....


What?

[The Alexanderians]

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

Nath, you've expressly said you aren't considering the substance of the argument.
You've contributed precisely nothing so far except attacks on the posters.
It's not a matter of pot and kettle.
I'm making arguments.
You're making cattle noises.

Better than squeaky frog noises

[Galloism]

It cannot be the government "spending money to support your religion" if, by accommodating your needs, the government actually saves money.

It doesn't matter if the government saves money by accommodating religious needs. Religions must be left out.

So we have a policy that both seems to build intolerance among students in the district, AND costs the district more money.

What was that about a bad policy being known by its effects again?

[Valystria]

The extra expense doesn't matter. Only that the money isn't spent on assisting someone in practicing their religion.

....


What?

It's true.

[Ostroeuropa]

The extra expense doesn't matter. Only that the money isn't spent on assisting someone in practicing their religion.

....


What?

The state cannot fund religion.
If the funds are approved on the grounds that the muslim kids need these funds to practice their religion, that violates secular principles.
It doesn't matter if the funds being spent elsewhere costs the state more money. In fact, it could use that to argue for switching back to the other food as a secular rationale. (Budget.)

[The Alexanderians]

The extra expense doesn't matter. Only that the money isn't spent on assisting someone in practicing their religion.

....


What?

Like you said before: Anti-religious. IF no other post proves it this one does.

[Divitaen]

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.

So you're ok with catering to vegeterians but not to Muslims? What's the difference? Both are dietary restrictions based purely on conscience.

[Valystria]

It doesn't matter if the government saves money by accommodating religious needs. Religions must be left out.

So we have a policy that both seems to build intolerance among students in the district, AND costs the district more money.

What was that about a bad policy being known by its effects again?

There are different priorities when measuring a policy by its effects. In the context of the secular state the utmost priority is maintaining secularism.

[Ostroeuropa]

....


What?

Like you said before: Anti-religious. IF no other post proves it this one does.

Why should a catholic have to pay for a protestant to practice their faith?
Why should an atheist have to pay for it?

It's not anti-religion.
It's anti-religion being involved in the state or using tax payer funds.

[Galloism]

....


What?

It's true.

If you actually save money by accommodating, you can't be said to be spending money 'assisting someone in practicing their religion'. It's more along the lines of "by someone practicing their religion, I spend less money. Win-win!"

[Valystria]

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

So you're ok with catering to vegeterians but not to Muslims? What's the difference? Both are dietary restrictions based purely on conscience.

Because a secular state can accommodate secular reasons but not religious reasons.

[Ostroeuropa]

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

So you're ok with catering to vegeterians but not to Muslims? What's the difference? Both are dietary restrictions based purely on conscience.

Catering to vegetarians doesn't violate secular principles. It's not a religion.

[Galloism]

So we have a policy that both seems to build intolerance among students in the district, AND costs the district more money.

What was that about a bad policy being known by its effects again?

There are different priorities when measuring a policy by its effects. In the context of the secular state the utmost priority is maintaining secularism.

So, the actual effects on the ground are secondary to some nebulous principle.

So what if a few more people get beaten up in school. So what if we ostracize a minority and make their lives a living hell. Dammit, we told people what to EAT.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's true.

If you actually save money by accommodating, you can't be said to be spending money 'assisting someone in practicing their religion'. It's more along the lines of "by someone practicing their religion, I spend less money. Win-win!"

As i've said previously, if they can save money by switching to another food, they should.
For secular reasons.
Budget concerns.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

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

Nath, you've expressly said you aren't considering the substance of the argument.
You've contributed precisely nothing so far except attacks on the posters.
It's not a matter of pot and kettle.
I'm making arguments.
You're making cattle noises.

I'm sorry you're having such difficulty in reading perfectly clear and thoughtful posts, dear. You may want to read back and discover the error in your judgment. Perhaps remove the beam from your eye before pointing out the speck you perceive in others? No, wait - that would be an unfamiliar reference, wouldn't it. Or at least, unwelcome.

You're ranting and frothing at the mouth while ignoring the content of the report, the arguments of others, and loudly braying stubbornly. Thank you for playing, have a nice $time_of_day.

[Valystria]

It's true.

If you actually save money by accommodating, you can't be said to be spending money 'assisting someone in practicing their religion'. It's more along the lines of "by someone practicing their religion, I spend less money. Win-win!"

Saving money should only be done for secular reasons.

Secularism is not about the money. It may well be cheaper accommodating religions but that does not mean the secular state should do that.

[The Alexanderians]

So we have a policy that both seems to build intolerance among students in the district, AND costs the district more money.

What was that about a bad policy being known by its effects again?

There are different priorities when measuring a policy by its effects. In the context of the secular state the utmost priority is maintaining secularism.

That's...flat out wrong. No a secular states utmost priority is the same as any other, continued existence of the state and protection of it's interests/people. If Frances highest priority is maintaining secularism we have a lot more to worry about than simple school lunches.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Like you said before: Anti-religious. IF no other post proves it this one does.

Why should a catholic have to pay for a protestant to practice their faith?
Why should an atheist have to pay for it?

It's not anti-religion.
It's anti-religion being involved in the state or using tax payer funds.

Daft questions, Jesus H. Christ... we live in a collective society. My tax money pays for services that I and others need. And this includes, yes, you guessed it, people from all walks of life and religions.

[Galloism]

If you actually save money by accommodating, you can't be said to be spending money 'assisting someone in practicing their religion'. It's more along the lines of "by someone practicing their religion, I spend less money. Win-win!"

Saving money should only be done for secular reasons.

Secularism is not about the money. It may well be cheaper accommodating religions but that does not mean the secular state should do that.

This sounds like a policy made of stupid.

You want to spend more money in order to give some people you don't like the bird.

... Donald Trump, is that you?