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

[Fartsniffage]

Whoa.....the point of a secular government is not to enforce secularism. That you thing it it is fucking worrying...

What?

I'm just replying to what you wrote. "The reason for the government enforcing secularism doesn't matter to me.". It's not the place of a secular government to enforce secularism, simply to govern is a secular manner.

[Olerand]

Oh my god, how hard is it to cook some chicken too? I mean fuck. It's not even expensive.

Chicken is offered.

I still really object that defense of Muslims/Islam is an "SJW" thing.

Well, it seems that only the liberal left is consistently willing to defend Muslims -and only them, Jews, Christians etc. be damned- always and recurrently. It is only natural one associate their selective support with their character.

[Olerand]

Laïcité exists to remove religion from the public sphere. A laïque public school is the definition of the public sphere. All religious influences, beliefs, dietary restrictions, are an entirely private and personal matter and should be dealt with in the private sphere. No exceptions. (If French governments had balls they would also extend this issue to Alsace-Lorraine, technically still under the Napoleonic Concordat as Laïcité was instituted when they were German, and even better, remove subsidies for private schools; but French governments successively lack fortitude today)

Oppression is the new freedom, it appears.

If you find the French Republic oppressive, adieu! French courts, and European courts, don't. So better luck elsewhere.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Laïcité exists to remove religion from the public sphere. A laïque public school is the definition of the public sphere. All religious influences, beliefs, dietary restrictions, are an entirely private and personal matter and should be dealt with in the private sphere. No exceptions. (If French governments had balls they would also extend this issue to Alsace-Lorraine, technically still under the Napoleonic Concordat as Laïcité was instituted when they were German, and even better, remove subsidies for private schools; but French governments successively lack fortitude today)

Oppression is the new freedom, it appears.

yay more witticisms

[Ostroeuropa]

What?

I'm just replying to what you wrote. "The reason for the government enforcing secularism doesn't matter to me.". It's not the place of a secular government to enforce secularism, simply to govern is a secular manner.

Which involves enforcing secularism on it's institutions.

[Galloism]

Oppression is the new freedom, it appears.

If you find the French Republic oppressive, adieu! French courts, and European courts, don't. So better luck elsewhere.

Just when it comes to religion. They seem to want to make religion one of those dead-of-night things you don't talk about with your friends or you get shunned.

The EU court France down a few times for being oppressive to religion, although, I am sad to say, they let the burqa ban stand.

[Valystria]

Laïcité exists to remove religion from the public sphere. A laïque public school is the definition of the public sphere. All religious influences, beliefs, dietary restrictions, are an entirely private and personal matter and should be dealt with in the private sphere. No exceptions. (If French governments had balls they would also extend this issue to Alsace-Lorraine, technically still under the Napoleonic Concordat as Laïcité was instituted when they were German, and even better, remove subsidies for private schools; but French governments successively lack fortitude today)

Oppression is the new freedom, it appears.

Because... not accommodating to faith-based preferences is oppression...

Reminds me of the GOP.

[Jochistan]

I still really object that defense of Muslims/Islam is an "SJW" thing.

Well, it seems that only the liberal left is consistently willing to defend Muslims -and only them, Jews, Christians etc. be damned- always and recurrently. It is only natural one associate their selective support with their character.

Liberals =/= SJW's

Much of "Gamergate" consisted of Liberals, from what I saw.

And even then, Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins etc. (actually pretty much every one of the "new" Atheists.) constantly criticize Islam/Muslims.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Because... not accommodating to faith-based preferences is oppression...

Reminds me of the GOP.

What you mean America isn't a Christian nation founded on Christian values?

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Well, it seems that only the liberal left is consistently willing to defend Muslims -and only them, Jews, Christians etc. be damned- always and recurrently. It is only natural one associate their selective support with their character.

Liberals =/= SJW's

Much of "Gamergate" consisted of Liberals.

And even then, Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins etc. (actually pretty much every one of the "new" Atheists.)

tbf before /b/ and tumblr started waving their dicks and non-binary reproductive organs around the issue was solely journalism ethics.

[Galloism]

Oppression is the new freedom, it appears.

Because... not accommodating to faith-based preferences is oppression...

Reminds me of the GOP.

I'll just remind you what LG pointed out:

My thought was this:
Schools can save money by not having to cook these alternate choices; money better spent on actual education. If the parents of some children don't like it, they can do what every other parent does when their kids don't like school lunches. They can pack a lunch.

But... That's not why they're doing it. They are literally doing it to be dicks. It's like they woke up one day and said, "You know? It's been a while since we did something completely dickish. I think it's time to fuck with the Jews and Muslims again."

And this is far from the first time for France. Banning religious symbols in schools worn by students, banning the burqa in public, etc etc etc. They even tried to level a special tax that targeted only proselytizing religions (EU court struck that one down).

[Fartsniffage]

I'm just replying to what you wrote. "The reason for the government enforcing secularism doesn't matter to me.". It's not the place of a secular government to enforce secularism, simply to govern is a secular manner.

Which involves enforcing secularism on it's institutions.

Nah, you're confusing secularism and state atheism.

[Valystria]

Just when it comes to religion. They seem to want to make religion one of those dead-of-night things you don't talk about with your friends or you get shunned.

That wouldn't be so bad at all.

Because... not accommodating to faith-based preferences is oppression...

Reminds me of the GOP.

I'll just remind you what LG pointed out:

My thought was this:
Schools can save money by not having to cook these alternate choices; money better spent on actual education. If the parents of some children don't like it, they can do what every other parent does when their kids don't like school lunches. They can pack a lunch.

But... That's not why they're doing it. They are literally doing it to be dicks. It's like they woke up one day and said, "You know? It's been a while since we did something completely dickish. I think it's time to fuck with the Jews and Muslims again."

And this is far from the first time for France. Banning religious symbols in schools worn by students, banning the burqa in public, etc etc etc.

The motives don't matter.

There's no reason religion should be in the public sphere.

[Valystria]

Which involves enforcing secularism on it's institutions.

Nah, you're confusing secularism and state atheism.

So France is state atheist?

[West Dixieland]

Unless your language speakers have a negative birth rate, and there's is positive.

Which currently isn't happening in Europe or North America. Canada may have lower birthrates than it used to, but English isn't disappearing because of this. That is what the majority of people (whether they were born here or not) speak, and for good reason: because when someone from China and someone from India can both speak English, they can both do business. This is why English won't be going anywhere anytime soon.

which is good. You make it seem like I'm taking a stance on issues

[Fartsniffage]

Nah, you're confusing secularism and state atheism.

So France is state atheist?

Seems to be heading that way, at least towards Islam and Judaism. The don't seem to be too many things cropping up that attack Christianity but I might be missing them.

[Valystria]

So France is state atheist?

Seems to be heading that way, at least towards Islam and Judaism. The don't seem to be too many things cropping up that attack Christianity but I might be missing them.

Falsely conflating secularism with state atheism isn't helping your case at all.

[Galloism]

Just when it comes to religion. They seem to want to make religion one of those dead-of-night things you don't talk about with your friends or you get shunned.

That wouldn't be so bad at all.

I'll just remind you what LG pointed out:




And this is far from the first time for France. Banning religious symbols in schools worn by students, banning the burqa in public, etc etc etc.

The motives don't matter.

There's no reason religion should be in the public sphere.

There's no reason to restrict individual people from expressing their religious beliefs whenever they feel like it, aside from when they are acting as representatives for the government. The government should have no religious beliefs, but there's no need to restrict individuals religious beliefs as France seems desperate to do.

[Galloism]

So France is state atheist?

Seems to be heading that way, at least towards Islam and Judaism. The don't seem to be too many things cropping up that attack Christianity but I might be missing them.

They did try to levy a 60% tax targeted at one single religion which happened to be Christian.

EU court struck it.

Here you go.

[Fartsniffage]

Seems to be heading that way, at least towards Islam and Judaism. The don't seem to be too many things cropping up that attack Christianity but I might be missing them.

Falsely conflating secularism with state atheism isn't helping your case at all.

Oh how will I survive your disapproval?

[Valystria]

Falsely conflating secularism with state atheism isn't helping your case at all.

Oh how will I survive your disapproval?

Okay, it's good to see you realize you've been using a false conflation.

[Fartsniffage]

Oh how will I survive your disapproval?

Okay, it's good to see you realize you've been using a false conflation.

I'm confused. I said that Ostro's definition of secularism was actually state atheism. How was that incorrect?

[Valystria]

Okay, it's good to see you realize you've been using a false conflation.

I'm confused. I said that Ostro's definition of secularism was actually state atheism. How was that incorrect?

Because by doing so you're implying Laïcité is state atheism.

[Ostroeuropa]

Okay, it's good to see you realize you've been using a false conflation.

I'm confused. I said that Ostro's definition of secularism was actually state atheism. How was that incorrect?

How so?
A state should enforce secularism on it's institutions. If it doesn't, then in what way is it a secular state?

[Valystria]

That wouldn't be so bad at all.



The motives don't matter.

There's no reason religion should be in the public sphere.

There's no reason to restrict individual people from expressing their religious beliefs whenever they feel like it, aside from when they are acting as representatives for the government. The government should have no religious beliefs, but there's no need to restrict individuals religious beliefs as France seems desperate to do.

It's not that it's restricting. It's merely not accommodating their religious preferences.