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

[Valystria]

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?

Even if the intents were genuine it may well have ended up being implemented unevenly anyway.
Consistent application of the policies matters more than the intents.

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".

It is. The issue is that they didn't go far enough.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

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.

In this, yes, it is the case. I have explained why that's the case, more than once.

[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.

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.

That would be literally forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs. Not merely failing to assist them. It isn't equivalent.

[The Alexanderians]

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.

You win the internet good sir. I tip my hat to you.

[Galloism]

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.

You win the internet good sir. I tip my hat to you.

Well, now anyone who is an MRA can no longer be in government in France.

My wife is founding the Great Church of Feminism next week. We're still working on a slogan. That one I came up with in roughly five seconds.

[The Alexanderians]

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.

That would be literally forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs. Not merely failing to assist them. It isn't equivalent.

They are violating them though. They are placing unnecessary burden on the minority students by forcing them to choose between "abandon your religion or starve". I know France loved making martyrs but they used to just be Christians or Cathars before.

[The Alexanderians]

You win the internet good sir. I tip my hat to you.

Well, now anyone who is an MRA can no longer be in government in France.

My wife is founding the Great Church of Feminism next week. We're still working on a slogan. That one I came up with in roughly five seconds.

The services would be glorious.

[Divitaen]

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.

That would be literally forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs. Not merely failing to assist them. It isn't equivalent.

No, its not exactly equivalent, but the point is that ideology and religion are exactly the same thing. You can't pretend they're different because they are effectively the same. They are belief systems with a set of rules and regulations. If you accomodate one and not the other, it is discrimination. If someone considers himself or herself a "devout" vegeterian, how do you distinguish that from a religion? Where do you draw the line?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

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

Even if the intents were genuine it may well have ended up being implemented unevenly anyway.
Consistent application of the policies matters more than the intents.

Not in this case, it isn't. The intent, due the the history of the country in the treatment of religious minorities is very much on point, and should be taken into consideration here.

What is irrelevant is application because as it has been shown, that has never been applied in any consistent way. Not just that, as soon as you twist secularism to advance an agenda, you lose face.

[Galloism]

Even if the intents were genuine it may well have ended up being implemented unevenly anyway.
Consistent application of the policies matters more than the intents.

Not in this case, it isn't. The intent, due the the history of the country in the treatment of religious minorities is very much on point, and should be taken into consideration here.

What is irrelevant is application because as it has been shown, that has never been applied in any consistent way. Not just that, as soon as you twist secularism to advance an agenda, you lose face.

I caught a picture of France yesterday:

[Valystria]

Not in this case, it isn't. The intent, due the the history of the country in the treatment of religious minorities is very much on point, and should be taken into consideration here.

What is irrelevant is application because as it has been shown, that has never been applied in any consistent way. Not just that, as soon as you twist secularism to advance an agenda, you lose face.

I caught a picture of France yesterday:

That is strangely beautiful.

[Galloism]

I caught a picture of France yesterday:

That is strangely beautiful.

It's from heroes 6.

it's called a "Faceless".

[Infected Mushroom]

That would be literally forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs. Not merely failing to assist them. It isn't equivalent.

They are violating them though. They are placing unnecessary burden on the minority students by forcing them to choose between "abandon your religion or starve". I know France loved making martyrs but they used to just be Christians or Cathars before.

No, its not an option between abandoning your religion or starving, there are other options (such as reinterpreting your religion to exclude certain clauses as merely metaphorical, eating only the sides, bringing your lunch, asking for forgiveness after eating the pork and so on...)

Please don't misrepresent the situation

The state doesn't point a gun and go, ''abandon your religion or starve.'' Stop being so over-dramatic. Misrepresentation of what the policy entails does not advance the inquiry nor does it advance your argument in a persuasive manner.

[Valystria]

That is strangely beautiful.

It's from heroes 6.

it's called a "Faceless".

But it has a face.

[Ostroeuropa]

Not in this case, it isn't. The intent, due the the history of the country in the treatment of religious minorities is very much on point, and should be taken into consideration here.

What is irrelevant is application because as it has been shown, that has never been applied in any consistent way. Not just that, as soon as you twist secularism to advance an agenda, you lose face.

I caught a picture of France yesterday:

I didn't know you were a gamer.

[Galloism]

It's from heroes 6.

it's called a "Faceless".

But it has a face.

Not really - it's more like a mask.

Never mind! It's just what they call themselves!

[Galloism]

I caught a picture of France yesterday:

I didn't know you were a gamer.

Honestly that seemed like a really exotic reference - wasn't sure anyone would get it.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I caught a picture of France yesterday:

That is strangely beautiful.

Totally obscure reference for me. He had to explain.

[Ostroeuropa]

That would be literally forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs. Not merely failing to assist them. It isn't equivalent.

No, its not exactly equivalent, but the point is that ideology and religion are exactly the same thing. You can't pretend they're different because they are effectively the same. They are belief systems with a set of rules and regulations. If you accomodate one and not the other, it is discrimination. If someone considers himself or herself a "devout" vegeterian, how do you distinguish that from a religion? Where do you draw the line?

You draw the line between temporal and spiritual matters as has always been done.

temporal1
ˈtɛmp(ə)r(ə)l/
adjective
1.
relating to worldly as opposed to spiritual affairs; secular.
"the Church did not imitate the secular rulers who thought only of temporal gain"
synonyms: secular, non-spiritual, worldly, profane, material, mundane, earthly, terrestrial; More

[The Alexanderians]

They are violating them though. They are placing unnecessary burden on the minority students by forcing them to choose between "abandon your religion or starve". I know France loved making martyrs but they used to just be Christians or Cathars before.

No, its not an option between abandoning your religion or starving, there are other options (such as reinterpreting your religion to exclude certain clauses as merely metaphorical, eating only the sides, bringing your lunch, asking for forgiveness after eating the pork and so on...)

Please don't misrepresent the situation

The state doesn't point a gun and go, ''abandon your religion or starve.'' Stop being so over-dramatic. Misrepresentation of what the policy entails does not advance the inquiry nor does it advance your argument in a persuasive manner.

Too bad I'm not misrepresenting it.

[Infected Mushroom]

Even if the intents were genuine it may well have ended up being implemented unevenly anyway.
Consistent application of the policies matters more than the intents.

Not in this case, it isn't. The intent, due the the history of the country in the treatment of religious minorities is very much on point, and should be taken into consideration here.

What is irrelevant is application because as it has been shown, that has never been applied in any consistent way. Not just that, as soon as you twist secularism to advance an agenda, you lose face.

The probative value (if there is any) of placing heavy emphasis on the intention of the law makers is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The trier of fact is likely to make the incorrect inference of placing undue weight on the intentions of the lawmakers as opposed to the actual effects of the policy.

And as I've said endlessly, a well-meaning lawmaker can make a terrible policy... and a spiteful lawmaker can make good policy. Intention is not relevant; instead to maximise the probative value of the inquiry, due attention ought to be focused on the actual effects.

And the actual effects, are the upholding of secular values and the creation of an equal, undistorted space for all children.

[Valystria]

Even if the intents were genuine it may well have ended up being implemented unevenly anyway.
Consistent application of the policies matters more than the intents.

Not in this case, it isn't. The intent, due the the history of the country in the treatment of religious minorities is very much on point, and should be taken into consideration here.

What is irrelevant is application because as it has been shown, that has never been applied in any consistent way. Not just that, as soon as you twist secularism to advance an agenda, you lose face.

No, it's because it has been applied inconsistently the application becomes very much relevant. A policy should be measured by consistent application. The inconsistent application of the policy indicates it falls short of the full secularism that should be aspired towards.

But it has a face.

Not really - it's more like a mask.

Never mind! It's just what they call themselves!

I see.

But if you're attempting to negatively associate France with an image, why use an image with a beautiful mystique to it?

[Divitaen]

No, its not exactly equivalent, but the point is that ideology and religion are exactly the same thing. You can't pretend they're different because they are effectively the same. They are belief systems with a set of rules and regulations. If you accomodate one and not the other, it is discrimination. If someone considers himself or herself a "devout" vegeterian, how do you distinguish that from a religion? Where do you draw the line?

You draw the line between temporal and spiritual matters as has always been done.

temporal1
ˈtɛmp(ə)r(ə)l/
adjective
1.
relating to worldly as opposed to spiritual affairs; secular.
"the Church did not imitate the secular rulers who thought only of temporal gain"
synonyms: secular, non-spiritual, worldly, profane, material, mundane, earthly, terrestrial; More

You admitted that the line was blur because religion can disguise itself as ideology all the time. Intelligent design is an example of that.

[Ostroeuropa]

I didn't know you were a gamer.

Honestly that seemed like a really exotic reference - wasn't sure anyone would get it.

I regularly make obscure references. They're the best kind.
Ofcourse it means people can't join in on your fun and you're merely having a joke at their expense, kind of, which good people wouldn't do, but...

We're not good people, and that's ok.

[Valystria]

You draw the line between temporal and spiritual matters as has always been done.

temporal1
ˈtɛmp(ə)r(ə)l/
adjective
1.
relating to worldly as opposed to spiritual affairs; secular.
"the Church did not imitate the secular rulers who thought only of temporal gain"
synonyms: secular, non-spiritual, worldly, profane, material, mundane, earthly, terrestrial; More

You admitted that the line was blur because religion can disguise itself as ideology all the time. Intelligent design is an example of that.

It is because the line can be blurred we must be vigilant.