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

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

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.

Again, the France case we are discussing has nothing to do with secularism. Read back. And intent, taking into account the historical evidence and not seeing this in the vacuum you do, does matters.

[Galloism]

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.

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?

Because if you're faceless, you've literally lost all the face you can. It is physically impossible to lose more face.

Which is why I chose it - it's called 'the faceless'.

[Infected Mushroom]

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.

To borrow a phrase from the French, ''Au Contraire, my friend.'' As I have just explained it, you are. The state never said, ''abandon your religion or starve.'' That is neither the declared law nor an effect of the law.

[Galloism]

Too bad I'm not misrepresenting it.

To borrow a phrase from the French, ''Au Contraire, my friend.'' As I have just explained it, you are. The state never said, ''abandon your religion or starve.'' That is neither the declared law nor an effect of the law.

Gauthier already provided evidence that seems to indicate children may not bring their own lunches to school.

So, yes it very much is.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

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.

There is no aspiration to secularism here. How many times must we go through this?

[Galloism]

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.

There is no aspiration to secularism here. How many times must we go through this?

Aspiration to drive out dirty muslims is secularism.

Now I've figured it out!

[The Alexanderians]

Too bad I'm not misrepresenting it.

To borrow a phrase from the French, ''Au Contraire, my friend.'' As I have just explained it, you are. The state never said, ''abandon your religion or starve.'' That is neither the declared law nor an effect of the law.

They are not providing alternative not even veggie ones and they are targeting religious minorities on purpose. Step it up, your arguments are a laughing stock right now.

[Galloism]

To borrow a phrase from the French, ''Au Contraire, my friend.'' As I have just explained it, you are. The state never said, ''abandon your religion or starve.'' That is neither the declared law nor an effect of the law.

They are not providing alternative not even veggie ones and they are targeting religious minorities on purpose. Step it up, your arguments are a laughing stock right now.

...

Do you know who you're talking to?

[Valystria]

To borrow a phrase from the French, ''Au Contraire, my friend.'' As I have just explained it, you are. The state never said, ''abandon your religion or starve.'' That is neither the declared law nor an effect of the law.

Gauthier already provided evidence that seems to indicate children may not bring their own lunches to school.

So, yes it very much is.

They can eat the pork without abandoning their religion.

All they have to do is pray for forgiveness once they've returned home.

[Infected Mushroom]

To borrow a phrase from the French, ''Au Contraire, my friend.'' As I have just explained it, you are. The state never said, ''abandon your religion or starve.'' That is neither the declared law nor an effect of the law.

Gauthier already provided evidence that seems to indicate children may not bring their own lunches to school.

So, yes it very much is.

The fact (even if established) that some children might not bring their own lunches doesn't mean that their remaining options are to ''abandon your religion or starve.''

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

There is no aspiration to secularism here. How many times must we go through this?

Whether they aspire to it or not isn't relevant. They're still doing secular work.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

There is no aspiration to secularism here. How many times must we go through this?

Aspiration to drive out dirty muslims is secularism.

Now I've figured it out!

That must be it.

Something funny I came across while reading is that for all its cries about ''France is secular'', this policy just shows a side of France's search for national identity, identifying as a Christian White Nation that totally throws off the ''we're secular'' argument off its tracks.

[Valystria]

Gauthier already provided evidence that seems to indicate children may not bring their own lunches to school.

So, yes it very much is.

The fact (even if established) that some children might not bring their own lunches doesn't mean that their remaining options are to ''abandon your religion or starve.''

Indeed. Even within their own religion they have plenty of means to eat the pork without abandoning the religion.

There is a mechanism of praying for forgiveness after they have a committed a sin.

[Infected Mushroom]

Gauthier already provided evidence that seems to indicate children may not bring their own lunches to school.

So, yes it very much is.

They can eat the pork without abandoning their religion.

All they have to do is pray for forgiveness once they've returned home.

Indeed. Or they can favour a different interpretation of the same sacred text. After all, since some Christians can look at what is literally stated in texts like Leviticus and say ''they are just metaphorical and not meant to be taken literally as commands that apply now,'' Muslims can do the same while still considering themselves Muslims

[Galloism]

Gauthier already provided evidence that seems to indicate children may not bring their own lunches to school.

So, yes it very much is.

They can eat the pork without abandoning their religion.

All they have to do is pray for forgiveness once they've returned home.

Given people have literally endured torture, starvation, imprisonment, beatings, and death for the sake of their religion, your assertion that they can simply eat pork and ask for forgiveness is flat out delusional.

[Infected Mushroom]

double post removed

[Galloism]

Gauthier already provided evidence that seems to indicate children may not bring their own lunches to school.

So, yes it very much is.

They can eat the pork without abandoning their religion.

All they have to do is pray for forgiveness once they've returned home.

Given people have literally endured torture, starvation, beatings, and death for the sake of their religion, your assertion that they can simply eat pork and ask for forgiveness is flat out delusional.

[Galloism]

Gauthier already provided evidence that seems to indicate children may not bring their own lunches to school.

So, yes it very much is.

They can eat the pork without abandoning their religion.

All they have to do is pray for forgiveness once they've returned home.

Given people have literally endured torture, starvation, beatings, and death for the sake of their religion, your assertion that they can simply eat pork and ask for forgiveness is flat out delusional.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

There is no aspiration to secularism here. How many times must we go through this?

Whether they aspire to it or not isn't relevant. They're still doing secular work.

Eh, must I repeat myself in that no, this is not secular in any way?

[Valystria]

There is no aspiration to secularism here. How many times must we go through this?

Whether they aspire to it or not isn't relevant. They're still doing secular work.

I'll point out that someone aspiring to secularism could still do it terribly.

[Infected Mushroom]

They can eat the pork without abandoning their religion.

All they have to do is pray for forgiveness once they've returned home.

Given people have literally endured torture, starvation, imprisonment, beatings, and death for the sake of their religion, your assertion that they can simply eat pork and ask for forgiveness is flat out delusional.

No its entirely based on reality. Its an option realistically available. A person who is a Muslim can carry out Valystria's suggestion and still at the end of the day, not have abandoned their religion. This brings your false duality of options to an end.

[The Alexanderians]

They are not providing alternative not even veggie ones and they are targeting religious minorities on purpose. Step it up, your arguments are a laughing stock right now.

...

Do you know who you're talking to?

I sometimes forget and give them the same expectations as reasonable people, my apologies.

[Valystria]

They can eat the pork without abandoning their religion.

All they have to do is pray for forgiveness once they've returned home.

Given people have literally endured torture, starvation, beatings, and death for the sake of their religion, your assertion that they can simply eat pork and ask for forgiveness is flat out delusional.

I've done similar things many times...

it is not delusional to say your deity will forgive you after you have sinned.

Oh wait is, because the deity doesn't exist.

[Galloism]

The fact (even if established) that some children might not bring their own lunches doesn't mean that their remaining options are to ''abandon your religion or starve.''

Indeed. Even within their own religion they have plenty of means to eat the pork without abandoning the religion.

There is a mechanism of praying for forgiveness after they have a committed a sin.

You can only be forgiven of your sin in Islam if you meet the following criteria:

(a) Sincerity in repentance

(b) Giving up the sin

(c) Regretting the sin

(d) Resolving not to go back to the sin

(e) Repenting in time, for Allah does not accept repentance when the death rattle sounds before the soul is taken, or after the sun rises from its place of setting

(f) Restoring people’s rights if the sin had to do with the rights of other people

http://islamqa.info/en/165010

So if the student in question also intends to eat the pork next time it comes up, his repentance is not accepted, and his sin not forgiven. He can only forgiven if he resolves not to eat the pork anymore.

[Valystria]

Indeed. Even within their own religion they have plenty of means to eat the pork without abandoning the religion.

There is a mechanism of praying for forgiveness after they have a committed a sin.

You can only be forgiven of your sin in Islam if you meet the following criteria:

(a) Sincerity in repentance

(b) Giving up the sin

(c) Regretting the sin

(d) Resolving not to go back to the sin

(e) Repenting in time, for Allah does not accept repentance when the death rattle sounds before the soul is taken, or after the sun rises from its place of setting

(f) Restoring people’s rights if the sin had to do with the rights of other people

http://islamqa.info/en/165010

So if the student in question also intends to eat the pork next time it comes up, his repentance is not accepted, and his sin not forgiven. He can only forgiven if he resolves not to eat the pork anymore.

You can do all of those steps and repeat it again.