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

[Valystria]

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.

One is religious. The other is not.
A secular state must ignore religious accommodations. Secular accommodations should be provided.

[Valystria]

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.

You're assuming the root of the problem can be fixed.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

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.

Good, then we're in agreement here. This issue is not about secularism or France's practice of ''laicite''. It is about using the banner of secularism to advance a bigoted agenda.

No alternative will be provided, and that's what many here are pointing out. That's why this is bullshit. That's why we are bringing evidence of a particular pattern. This is it.

[The Alexanderians]

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.

France's regional stability is literally dying, this is compounded by economic issues and sticking it to groups isn't going to help matters AT ALL. Especially considering the southern areas might try breaking off in the next 10-20 years.

[Galloism]

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.

You're assuming the root of the problem can be fixed.

Given the root is a bunch of governmental xenophobia at all levels of government, yes it can. A few law changes and a little more tolerance out of the mouths of government officials will go a long way to fixing the problem.

However, to give you the benefit of it, 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 take any steps to attack the root of the problem.
b) Attacking the root of the problem.

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

Good, then we're in agreement here. This issue is not about secularism or France's practice of ''laicite''. It is about using the banner of secularism to advance a bigoted agenda.

No alternative will be provided, and that's what many here are pointing out. That's why this is bullshit. That's why we are bringing evidence of a particular pattern. This is it.

Yes, and that's fine.
But people here were often demanding an alternative meal for religious rationales. That isn't fine. That does make this issue about secularism.

[Divitaen]

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.

That's extremely tenuous. So if I created an ideology called Ahmadiism that contained all the rules of Islam, including no pork, just without Allah and the worship of a god, you would happily use tax-payer money to fund a pork-free meal?

[Valystria]

You're assuming the root of the problem can be fixed.

Given the root is a bunch of governmental xenophobia at all levels of government, yes it can. A few law changes and a little more tolerance out of the mouths of government officials will go a long way to fixing the problem.

However, to give you the benefit of it, which is more effective, provide you can do both?

a) Taking continuing action trying to beat back the symptoms of a problem forever while refusing to take any steps to attack the root of the problem.
b) Attacking the root of the problem.

Can't both be done to an extent?

[The Alexanderians]

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

One is religious. The other is not.
A secular state must ignore religious accommodations. Secular accommodations should be provided.

They are a collection of ethical stand points as well. You are willing to accommodate one but not the other. A heavy coating of bullshit but the biased shines through.

[Galloism]

Given the root is a bunch of governmental xenophobia at all levels of government, yes it can. A few law changes and a little more tolerance out of the mouths of government officials will go a long way to fixing the problem.

However, to give you the benefit of it, which is more effective, provide you can do both?

a) Taking continuing action trying to beat back the symptoms of a problem forever while refusing to take any steps to attack the root of the problem.
b) Attacking the root of the problem.

Can't both be done to an extent?

But are you willing to attack the root of the problem?

Some things have to change - one of which is for the government to stop being so damned xenophobic.

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

That's extremely tenuous. So if I created an ideology called Ahmadiism that contained all the rules of Islam, including no pork, just without Allah and the worship of a god, you would happily use tax-payer money to fund a pork-free meal?

I would say you are then welcome to attempt to marshall a majority provided it remains an ideology and not a religion, which can be determined by the nature of it's arguments and such.

Ofcourse we might get into the Intelligent Design problem there where it becomes apparent that this is just religion in disguise. I'd have to review the court decisions on that to get a clearer idea.

[Valystria]

Can't both be done to an extent?

But are you willing to attack the root of the problem?

Some things have to change - one of which is for the government to stop being so damned xenophobic.

Only if it can be done in a secular way.

One is religious. The other is not.
A secular state must ignore religious accommodations. Secular accommodations should be provided.

They are a collection of ethical stand points as well. You are willing to accommodate one but not the other. A heavy coating of bullshit but the biased shines through.

Secularism is what it is. We can argue about the fairness or unfairness of it so long as we accept there can be no religious accommodations.

[The Alexanderians]

But are you willing to attack the root of the problem?

Some things have to change - one of which is for the government to stop being so damned xenophobic.

Only if it can be done in a secular way.

They are a collection of ethical stand points as well. You are willing to accommodate one but not the other. A heavy coating of bullshit but the biased shines through.

Secularism is what it is. We can argue about the fairness or unfairness of it so long as we accept there can be no religious accommodations.

Do I need to get Ansem in here again?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Good, then we're in agreement here. This issue is not about secularism or France's practice of ''laicite''. It is about using the banner of secularism to advance a bigoted agenda.

No alternative will be provided, and that's what many here are pointing out. That's why this is bullshit. That's why we are bringing evidence of a particular pattern. This is it.

Yes, and that's fine.
But people here were often demanding an alternative meal for religious rationales. That isn't fine. That does make this issue about secularism.

I still think reasonable accommodation isn't bad. We do it all the time. We do it for the disabled, for the elderly, for children. The truth is that you have a sector of your population that is required to pay taxes and yet, you are going to treat them as second class citizens.

We live in a society of many, and those many do myriad things and have myriad beliefs. I don't see how providing an alternative meal in case of dietary restrictions, religious or not, is such a job.

[Galloism]

One is religious. The other is not.
A secular state must ignore religious accommodations. Secular accommodations should be provided.

They are a collection of ethical stand points as well. You are willing to accommodate one but not the other. A heavy coating of bullshit but the biased shines through.

Shit, our Kindergarten accommodates kids that are still afraid of the dark at nap time by having a room that's lit for them to sleep in. That's not any more rational than any religion.

[Divitaen]

That's extremely tenuous. So if I created an ideology called Ahmadiism that contained all the rules of Islam, including no pork, just without Allah and the worship of a god, you would happily use tax-payer money to fund a pork-free meal?

I would say you are then welcome to attempt to marshall a majority provided it remains an ideology and not a religion, which can be determined by the nature of it's arguments and such.

Ofcourse we might get into the Intelligent Design problem there where it becomes apparent that this is just religion in disguise. I'd have to review the court decisions on that to get a clearer idea.

Yes, glad you realise it is religion in disguse, because the link between ideology and religion is very, very tenuous. And both are voluntary impairments, in your words. A vegeterian is, too, voluntarily impairing themselves by voluntarily deciding not to eat meat. So if you cater to the vegeterian, and not the Muslim, it is a form of discrimination and unequal treatment.

[Ostroeuropa]

Only if it can be done in a secular way.



Secularism is what it is. We can argue about the fairness or unfairness of it so long as we accept there can be no religious accommodations.

Do I need to get Ansem in here again?

What's your argument for how the state providing funds to assist people in practicing their religion is compatible with secular values?

[Galloism]

But are you willing to attack the root of the problem?

Some things have to change - one of which is for the government to stop being so damned xenophobic.

Only if it can be done in a secular way.

Well, a good start would be repealing the Burqa ban and for the government to announce that it's sorry for being a dick.

[Valystria]

Only if it can be done in a secular way.



Secularism is what it is. We can argue about the fairness or unfairness of it so long as we accept there can be no religious accommodations.

Do I need to get Ansem in here again?

If you wish.

They are a collection of ethical stand points as well. You are willing to accommodate one but not the other. A heavy coating of bullshit but the biased shines through.

Shit, our Kindergarten accommodates kids that are still afraid of the dark at nap time by having a room that's lit for them to sleep in. That's not any more rational than any religion.

But it is secular.

[The Alexanderians]

They are a collection of ethical stand points as well. You are willing to accommodate one but not the other. A heavy coating of bullshit but the biased shines through.

Shit, our Kindergarten accommodates kids that are still afraid of the dark at nap time by having a room that's lit for them to sleep in. That's not any more rational than any religion.

I'm confused...are you agreeing with me?

[Galloism]

Shit, our Kindergarten accommodates kids that are still afraid of the dark at nap time by having a room that's lit for them to sleep in. That's not any more rational than any religion.

I'm confused...are you agreeing with me?

Yes.

There's nothing wrong with reasonable accommodations for the needs of all citizens when they have deeply held values and beliefs, whether those beliefs are religious or secular in nature.

[Valystria]

Only if it can be done in a secular way.

Well, a good start would be repealing the Burqa ban and for the government to announce that it's sorry for being a dick.

It's extremely unlikely for that to happen.
Sarkozy will likely win.

[Galloism]

Well, a good start would be repealing the Burqa ban and for the government to announce that it's sorry for being a dick.

It's extremely unlikely for that to happen.
Sarkozy will likely win.

Yet that WOULD be attacking the root of the problem. It's not a cure-all, but it'd be a great start.


And yeah, if Sarkozy wins, it'll be hard to make that happen. It's always hard for a dick to admit he's been a dick.

[Valystria]

I'm confused...are you agreeing with me?

Yes.

There's nothing wrong with reasonable accommodations for the needs of all citizens when they have deeply held values and beliefs, whether those beliefs are religious or secular in nature.

That depends on the nature of the state.

France clearly has its own standards on what can be accepted as reasonable accommodations.

[The Alexanderians]

I'm confused...are you agreeing with me?

Yes.

There's nothing wrong with reasonable accommodations for the needs of all citizens when they have deeply held values and beliefs, whether those beliefs are religious or secular in nature.

Ok as long as we cleared up my confusion and we're on the same page.