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

[Valystria]

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.

There should be stricter enforcement against bullies.

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.

If a secular state ceases to be secular it is no longer a secular state. A secular state must decide what it values most. Being a state, or being a secular state.

[The Alexanderians]

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.

I guess I should have to pay for healthcare if I don't need it right? My countrymen and women use those services I should chip in a bit.

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

Do you seriously not understand that using tax payer money to help people practice their religion violates secular principles?

[Valystria]

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?

It's not about giving them the bird. It's unfortunate some people use it for that.

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

I guess I should have to pay for healthcare if I don't need it right? My countrymen and women use those services I should chip in a bit.

That's a secular concern.
Do you still not understand what the temporal realm is?

[Galloism]

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.

There should be stricter enforcement against bullies.

That doesn't solve the underlying problem - France's transparent xenophobia against foreign religions, especially muslims, is infecting the populace from the top to the bottom, including the children. I mean, it's not rocket science that if you consistently treat a minority as shit, that children will pick up that treating that minority like shit is socially approved.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

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.

Do you seriously not understand that using tax payer money to help people practice their religion violates secular principles?

Do you not understand that this issue is not about secularism, and we have covered this, but about advancing a particular political agenda by twisting secular precepts?

[Valystria]

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.

I guess I should have to pay for healthcare if I don't need it right? My countrymen and women use those services I should chip in a bit.

Absolutely. Public healthcare is the superior model.

[Galloism]

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?

It's not about giving them the bird. It's unfortunate some people use it for that.

This policy is was put in place with the specific purpose of giving them the bird.

[The Alexanderians]

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.

There should be stricter enforcement against bullies.

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.

If a secular state ceases to be secular it is no longer a secular state. A secular state must decide what it values most. Being a state, or being a secular state.

Anything that doesn't protect it's own continued existence over something as trivial as sticking it to some "dirty mooslimz" isn't going to continue to exist.Maybe they should instead deal with the growing Occitan separatist movements instead.

[The Alexanderians]

It's not about giving them the bird. It's unfortunate some people use it for that.

This policy is was put in place with the specific purpose of giving them the bird.

With the recent policies going around in France "bird" is polite. More like bending them over and using a barbed condom.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

It's not about giving them the bird. It's unfortunate some people use it for that.

This policy is was put in place with the specific purpose of giving them the bird.

Yup, something plainly visible in the answers Marine Le Pen has been giving people regarding the issue. It is a policy targeted at Muslim people. One of many in an ever expanding pile of bullshit.

[Valystria]

There should be stricter enforcement against bullies.

That doesn't solve the underlying problem - France's transparent xenophobia against foreign religions, especially muslims, is infecting the populace from the top to the bottom, including the children. I mean, it's not rocket science that if you consistently treat a minority as shit, that children will pick up that treating that minority like shit is socially approved.

It may not solve the underlying problem but it would reduce the symptoms of it.

There should be stricter enforcement against bullies.


If a secular state ceases to be secular it is no longer a secular state. A secular state must decide what it values most. Being a state, or being a secular state.

Anything that doesn't protect it's own continued existence over something as trivial as sticking it to some "dirty mooslimz" isn't going to continue to exist.Maybe they should instead deal with the growing Occitan separatist movements instead.

I do not see France declining as a result of its brazen commitment to secularism. France has more important concerns such as economic issues.

[The Alexanderians]

I guess I should have to pay for healthcare if I don't need it right? My countrymen and women use those services I should chip in a bit.

That's a secular concern.
Do you still not understand what the temporal realm is?

Do you still not understand your own biases that blind you to objectivity?

[Valystria]

It's not about giving them the bird. It's unfortunate some people use it for that.

This policy is was put in place with the specific purpose of giving them the bird.

And it shouldn't have been put in place for that purpose. It should have been put in place for the purpose of secularism rather than using secularism as a means to an ends.

[The Alexanderians]

That doesn't solve the underlying problem - France's transparent xenophobia against foreign religions, especially muslims, is infecting the populace from the top to the bottom, including the children. I mean, it's not rocket science that if you consistently treat a minority as shit, that children will pick up that treating that minority like shit is socially approved.

It may not solve the underlying problem but it would reduce the symptoms of it.

Anything that doesn't protect it's own continued existence over something as trivial as sticking it to some "dirty mooslimz" isn't going to continue to exist.Maybe they should instead deal with the growing Occitan separatist movements instead.

I do not see France declining as a result of its brazen commitment to secularism. France has more important concerns such as economic issues.

Exactly. France doesn't have time or the resources to piss away on screwing over minorities,

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

This policy is was put in place with the specific purpose of giving them the bird.

And it shouldn't have been put in place for that purpose. It should have been put in place for the purpose of secularism rather than using secularism as a means to an ends.

Now you see it. That the excuse of secularism here is nothing more than a subterfuge to advance a political agenda.

[Galloism]

That doesn't solve the underlying problem - France's transparent xenophobia against foreign religions, especially muslims, is infecting the populace from the top to the bottom, including the children. I mean, it's not rocket science that if you consistently treat a minority as shit, that children will pick up that treating that minority like shit is socially approved.

It may not solve the underlying problem but it would reduce the symptoms of it.

Provided you can do both, which is more effective from almost any standpoint - politicial, social, health, or engineering, doesn't matter.

Trying to reduce the symptoms of a problem, or correcting the cause of the problem?

[Divitaen]

I guess I should have to pay for healthcare if I don't need it right? My countrymen and women use those services I should chip in a bit.

That's a secular concern.
Do you still not understand what the temporal realm is?

You're willing to use tax dollars to accomodate vegeterians. Why not Muslims? Both are conscience-based dietary restrictions.

[Ostroeuropa]

Do you seriously not understand that using tax payer money to help people practice their religion violates secular principles?

Do you not understand that this issue is not about secularism, and we have covered this, but about advancing a particular political agenda by twisting secular precepts?

I've made plenty of posts acknowledging what's going on here.
As I said, I think the far right are being clever at politics.

They're enacting policies that marginalize muslims, and muslims are playing right into their hands by then flipping out and demanding the state accomodate their religion. This immediately alienates the french public and reveals muslims are not "Real french" people, as france is highly secular and makes the far right seem like they are right when they say islam is incompatible with western society.
When they double down on that and say they are merely in favor of secularism and it's radical leftists who are in bed with islam, after all, we're just being secular, it makes them gain momentum and marginalizes muslims further.

What needs to happen is muslims need to shut the fuck up about their religion being accomodated when they pull this shit.
They need to band together with others and oppose the laws on secular grounds.
At that point, they'll start reversing this trend as the french will see the far right pointlessly fucking with people, as opposed to seeing the far right highlight that a section of french society harbors deeply "unfrench" sentiments.

[Valystria]

It may not solve the underlying problem but it would reduce the symptoms of it.


I do not see France declining as a result of its brazen commitment to secularism. France has more important concerns such as economic issues.

Exactly. France doesn't have time or the resources to piss away on screwing over minorities,

But they do. It may be not be an efficient use of their resources, but they have the resources for it nonetheless.

It may not solve the underlying problem but it would reduce the symptoms of it.

Provided you can do both, which is more effective from almost any standpoint - politicial, social, health, or engineering, doesn't matter.

Trying to reduce the symptoms of a problem, or correcting the cause of the problem?

If the symptoms of a problem can be reduced sufficiently, the cause of the problem ceases to matter.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Do you not understand that this issue is not about secularism, and we have covered this, but about advancing a particular political agenda by twisting secular precepts?

I've made plenty of posts acknowledging what's going on here.
As I said, I think the far right are being clever at politics.

They're enacting policies that marginalize muslims, and muslims are playing right into their hands by then flipping out and demanding the state accomodate their religion. This immediately alienates the french public and reveals muslims are not "Real french" people, as france is highly secular and makes the far right seem like they are right when they say islam is incompatible with western society.
When they double down on that and say they are merely in favor of secularism and it's radical leftists who are in bed with islam, after all, we're just being secular, it makes them gain momentum and marginalizes muslims further.

What needs to happen is muslims need to shut the fuck up about their religion being accomodated when they pull this shit.
They need to band together with others and oppose the laws on secular grounds.
At that point, they'll start reversing this trend as the french will see the far right pointlessly fucking with people, as opposed to seeing the far right highlight that a section of french society harbors deeply "unfrench" sentiments.

This issue is easily resolved by providing a vegan alternative, something we all seem to be in accord. And if not, then allow the children to bring their own lunches to school.

[Ostroeuropa]

That's a secular concern.
Do you still not understand what the temporal realm is?

You're willing to use tax dollars to accomodate vegeterians. Why not Muslims? Both are conscience-based dietary restrictions.

Because it's tax payer funds going toward religion. That's anti-secular. I'm a secularist.
A vegetarian can marshall a majority and get people to agree to fund their alternative, or they can fail to do so.

Our society is explicitly fine with privileging one ethical outlook over another based on politics.
What we ARENT fine with is privileging one religion over another.

[Valystria]

And it shouldn't have been put in place for that purpose. It should have been put in place for the purpose of secularism rather than using secularism as a means to an ends.

Now you see it. That the excuse of secularism here is nothing more than a subterfuge to advance a political agenda.

I've seen it the entire time. I haven't defended the use of it for that purpose.

If the purpose had been secularism itself there would have been a vegetarian alternative provided.

[Galloism]

Provided you can do both, which is more effective from almost any standpoint - politicial, social, health, or engineering, doesn't matter.

Trying to reduce the symptoms of a problem, or correcting the cause of the problem?

If the symptoms of a problem can be reduced sufficiently, the cause of the problem ceases to matter.

that's not what I asked you, but I kind of wanted to rephrase it anyway.

Which is more effective, provided you can do both?

a) Taking continuing action trying to beat back the symptoms of a problem forever while refusing to correct the problem.
b) Fixing the root of the problem.