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

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

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.

And Sarkozy is pushing hard and fast on this. He has been quite vocal about being pro eliminating meal alternatives in schools. He is in the running for the 2017 presidential elections.

[The Alexanderians]

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.

Well those standards could be, I don't know, wrong.

[Galloism]

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.

Yes, clearly if you need to have all the calendars in the school remade because you're afraid of Tuesday, that's fine.

But if you would like to have something besides pork, fuck you.

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

It would depend on the manner of it's claims.
If the ideology advocated a ban on certain behaviors for secular rationales, it would be fine.
If it made claims about non-temporal matters, it can be classed as a religion.

Secularism does discriminate.
It discriminates between temporal and spiritual matters. That is the nature of secularism. It treats all religions equally, but there is no need to treat all ethics equally.

[The Alexanderians]

That depends on the nature of the state.

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

Yes, clearly if you need to have all the calendars in the school remade because you're afraid of Tuesday, that's fine.

But if you would like to have something besides pork, fuck you.

Well if they want to be totally removed from religion then they have to get rid of the names of the days and the months since those are grounded in pagan names and standards.

[Valystria]

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.

I have no difficulty doing it.

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

And Sarkozy is pushing hard and fast on this. He has been quite vocal about being pro eliminating meal alternatives in schools. He is in the running for the 2017 presidential elections.

And that's a shoddy implementation of secularism.

Yes, clearly if you need to have all the calendars in the school remade because you're afraid of Tuesday, that's fine.

But if you would like to have something besides pork, fuck you.

Well if they want to be totally removed from religion then they have to get rid of the names of the days and the months since those are grounded in pagan names and standards.

Revolutionary France tried that once. It didn't go so well.

[Galloism]

Yes, clearly if you need to have all the calendars in the school remade because you're afraid of Tuesday, that's fine.

But if you would like to have something besides pork, fuck you.

Well if they want to be totally removed from religion then they have to get rid of the names of the days and the months since those are grounded in pagan names and standards.

Honestly, given how much religion has shaped language and naming conventions for... well, a very long time, I'd daresay it'd be impossible to get totally away from religion in a manner in which you suggest without inventing an entirely new language.

But, y'know, for Ostro it's all or nothing forever, so he better get cracking.

JRR Tolkein started a language. We could work from there.

[Ostroeuropa]

Yes, clearly if you need to have all the calendars in the school remade because you're afraid of Tuesday, that's fine.

But if you would like to have something besides pork, fuck you.

Well if they want to be totally removed from religion then they have to get rid of the names of the days and the months since those are grounded in pagan names and standards.

The french actually did try that.
They're pretty fucking serious about secularism.

[Valystria]

Well if they want to be totally removed from religion then they have to get rid of the names of the days and the months since those are grounded in pagan names and standards.

Honestly, given how much religion has shaped language and naming conventions for... well, a very long time, I'd daresay it'd be impossible to get totally away from religion in a manner in which you suggest without inventing an entirely new language.

But, y'know, for Ostro it's all or nothing forever, so he better get cracking.

JRR Tolkein started a language. We could work from there.

There are shifting standards for what counts as religious or secular.

Things that were once secular could be considered religious and vice versa.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

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.

It would depend on the manner of it's claims.
If the ideology advocated a ban on certain behaviors for secular rationales, it would be fine.
If it made claims about non-temporal matters, it can be classed as a religion.

Secularism does discriminate.
It discriminates between temporal and spiritual matters. That is the nature of secularism. It treats all religions equally, but there is no need to treat all ethics equally.

And here's where the conflict begins because France's laicite is not discriminating all religions equally. It's been very target oriented. The gov't has gone after Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons (who seem to be in some watch list of sorts), certain cults and, of course, Judaism and Islam.

I don't see anything about Protestant churches or the Catholic Church. Not even a peep on Buddhism.

[Galloism]

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.

I have no difficulty doing it.

So start lobbying the government to stop being a dick.

[Valystria]

Well if they want to be totally removed from religion then they have to get rid of the names of the days and the months since those are grounded in pagan names and standards.

The french actually did try that.
They're pretty fucking serious about secularism.

respect

[Ostroeuropa]

It would depend on the manner of it's claims.
If the ideology advocated a ban on certain behaviors for secular rationales, it would be fine.
If it made claims about non-temporal matters, it can be classed as a religion.

Secularism does discriminate.
It discriminates between temporal and spiritual matters. That is the nature of secularism. It treats all religions equally, but there is no need to treat all ethics equally.

And here's where the conflict begins because France's laicite is not discriminating all religions equally. It's been very target oriented. The gov't has gone after Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons (who seem to be in some watch list of sorts), certain cults and, of course, Judaism and Islam.

I don't see anything about Protestant churches or the Catholic Church. Not even a peep on Buddhism.

I agree. They're not being fair. Other religions have been privileged too and that needs to stop.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

And here's where the conflict begins because France's laicite is not discriminating all religions equally. It's been very target oriented. The gov't has gone after Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons (who seem to be in some watch list of sorts), certain cults and, of course, Judaism and Islam.

I don't see anything about Protestant churches or the Catholic Church. Not even a peep on Buddhism.

I agree. They're not being fair. Other religions have been privileged too and that needs to stop.

So, the ''it's because secularism'' line is rather moot. It has nothing to do with it.

[Valystria]

It would depend on the manner of it's claims.
If the ideology advocated a ban on certain behaviors for secular rationales, it would be fine.
If it made claims about non-temporal matters, it can be classed as a religion.

Secularism does discriminate.
It discriminates between temporal and spiritual matters. That is the nature of secularism. It treats all religions equally, but there is no need to treat all ethics equally.

And here's where the conflict begins because France's laicite is not discriminating all religions equally. It's been very target oriented. The gov't has gone after Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons (who seem to be in some watch list of sorts), certain cults and, of course, Judaism and Islam.

I don't see anything about Protestant churches or the Catholic Church. Not even a peep on Buddhism.

They should target those too. There is no excuse for slacking off at the application of secularism.

[The Alexanderians]

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.

I have no difficulty doing it.

And Sarkozy is pushing hard and fast on this. He has been quite vocal about being pro eliminating meal alternatives in schools. He is in the running for the 2017 presidential elections.

And that's a shoddy implementation of secularism.

Well if they want to be totally removed from religion then they have to get rid of the names of the days and the months since those are grounded in pagan names and standards.

Revolutionary France tried that once. It didn't go so well.

No shit? Couldn't imagine why.

[Galloism]

It would depend on the manner of it's claims.
If the ideology advocated a ban on certain behaviors for secular rationales, it would be fine.
If it made claims about non-temporal matters, it can be classed as a religion.

Secularism does discriminate.
It discriminates between temporal and spiritual matters. That is the nature of secularism. It treats all religions equally, but there is no need to treat all ethics equally.

And here's where the conflict begins because France's laicite is not discriminating all religions equally. It's been very target oriented. The gov't has gone after Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons (who seem to be in some watch list of sorts), certain cults and, of course, Judaism and Islam.

I don't see anything about Protestant churches or the Catholic Church. Not even a peep on Buddhism.

France even keeps an official list of cults that receive most of their ire, based largely on the religious beliefs of the organizations in question.

Ok, the link wouldn't work. Just gonna paste it in below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmen ... cts#France

[Divitaen]

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.

It would depend on the manner of it's claims.
If the ideology advocated a ban on certain behaviors for secular rationales, it would be fine.
If it made claims about non-temporal matters, it can be classed as a religion.

Secularism does discriminate.
It discriminates between temporal and spiritual matters. That is the nature of secularism. It treats all religions equally, but there is no need to treat all ethics equally.

No, but I'm saying there is a strong element of discrimination present. Last time in the US, Quakers could qualify for "conscientious objection" but antiwar protestors could not, and the Supreme Court ruled that that was conscience-based discrimination. Because religions and ideologies are basically the same thing - voluntary belief systems that people subscribe to, often resulting in voluntary impairments that you undertake for daily life. If you don't accomodate a Muslim but you accomodate a vegeterian, you are committing discrimination between vegeterianism and Islam.

[Valystria]

I agree. They're not being fair. Other religions have been privileged too and that needs to stop.

So, the ''it's because secularism'' line is rather moot. It has nothing to do with it.

It should.
The problem is that the people pushing for these policies in France are often not doing it out of secularism. That is why the implementations are so inconsistent.

[Valystria]

I have no difficulty doing it.


And that's a shoddy implementation of secularism.


Revolutionary France tried that once. It didn't go so well.

No shit? Couldn't imagine why.

It was because of a 10 day week. It would have worked had they simply renamed the days and months of the 7 day calendar.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

So, the ''it's because secularism'' line is rather moot. It has nothing to do with it.

It should.
The problem is that the people pushing for these policies in France are often not doing it out of secularism. That is why the implementations are so inconsistent.

Do you now see too why we have been telling you that intent is relevant here?

[The Alexanderians]

So, the ''it's because secularism'' line is rather moot. It has nothing to do with it.

It should.
The problem is that the people pushing for these policies in France are often not doing it out of secularism. That is why the implementations are so inconsistent.

So you admit that it's not for "secularism".

[Ostroeuropa]

I agree. They're not being fair. Other religions have been privileged too and that needs to stop.

So, the ''it's because secularism'' line is rather moot. It has nothing to do with it.

That's not the case. The fact the state privileges multiple religions doesn't mean that fighting those privileges isn't secularism. It just means they're applying it very unfairly and abusing the ideology. Secularism is merely the divorce of the state and religion. So long as a policy works to remove religion from government, it is secular.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

And here's where the conflict begins because France's laicite is not discriminating all religions equally. It's been very target oriented. The gov't has gone after Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons (who seem to be in some watch list of sorts), certain cults and, of course, Judaism and Islam.

I don't see anything about Protestant churches or the Catholic Church. Not even a peep on Buddhism.

France even keeps an official list of cults that receive most of their ire, based largely on the religious beliefs of the organizations in question.

Ok, the link wouldn't work. Just gonna paste it in below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmen ... cts#France

Oh, and if you peek at the Litigations section of Freedom of Religion in France, well, these speak for themselves.

[Galloism]

So, the ''it's because secularism'' line is rather moot. It has nothing to do with it.

That's not the case. The fact the state privileges multiple religions doesn't mean that fighting those privileges isn't secularism. It just means they're applying it very unfairly and abusing the ideology. Secularism is merely the divorce of the state and religion. So long as a policy works to remove religion from government, it is secular.

I hereby found the MRA Church, who believes in the one universal phallus.

Rain down your blessings upon us, oh great one. Shower us with your unending happiness.