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

[Galloism]

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?

Why should individuals, compelled to attend state institutions without pay, be barred from practicing their religion within that institution?

[Ostroeuropa]

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

Why should individuals, compelled to attend state institutions without pay, be barred from practicing their religion within that institution?

They aren't barred in this instance. They do not have to eat the pork.

[Galloism]

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.

In this case, perhaps, although it seems more "to be a dick" than "we're trying to save a dollar".

But France has a rather sordid history of restricting.

[Fartsniffage]

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.

No I'm not. I'm implying that Ostro doesn't understand Laïcité and is trying to force it to fit his views on religion within society.

[Galloism]

Why should individuals, compelled to attend state institutions without pay, be barred from practicing their religion within that institution?

They aren't barred in this instance. They do not have to eat the pork.

Like I said, France has a history, though, of such restriction.

[Imperializt Russia]

Why should individuals, compelled to attend state institutions without pay, be barred from practicing their religion within that institution?

They aren't barred in this instance. They do not have to eat the pork.

Such is the illusion of choice.

[Valystria]

They aren't barred in this instance. They do not have to eat the pork.

Such is the illusion of choice.

So they really don't have a choice? They are being forced to eat it? What?

[Valystria]

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

No I'm not. I'm implying that Ostro doesn't understand Laïcité and is trying to force it to fit his views on religion within society.

To the contrary Ostro understands Laïcité is the pinnacle of secularism.

[Kvatchdom]

Such is the illusion of choice.

So they really don't have a choice? They are being forced to eat it? What?

They either eat the pork, or they won't eat that part of a basic meal. This is shitty and stupid.

[Fartsniffage]

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?

Question for you. Should councils allow planning permission for places of worship. Why or why not? How about religious parades? Government inspections of halal/kosher slaughter-houses?

[Ostroeuropa]

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

Question for you. Should councils allow planning permission for places of worship. Why or why not? How about religious parades? Government inspections of halal/kosher slaughter-houses?

Depends on the structural nature of the building and such. The religious aspect is irrelevant.

Same for the parade and inspections.

Apply the national stamp collectors test. If the national stamp collectors lobby could do it, allow it. If they couldn't, don't.

[Fartsniffage]

No I'm not. I'm implying that Ostro doesn't understand Laïcité and is trying to force it to fit his views on religion within society.

To the contrary Ostro understands Laïcité is the pinnacle of secularism.

Oh dear.

[Valystria]

So they really don't have a choice? They are being forced to eat it? What?

They either eat the pork, or they won't eat that part of a basic meal. This is shitty and stupid.

And no one is forcing them to eat the pork... or to not eat it...

They can either eat the side dishes or bring their own lunch on days when pork is served.

To the contrary Ostro understands Laïcité is the pinnacle of secularism.

Oh dear.

You have yet to explain how enforcing Laïcité amounts to state atheism.

[Ostroeuropa]

They aren't barred in this instance. They do not have to eat the pork.

Like I said, France has a history, though, of such restriction.

I oppose the burqa ban and such.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

Because a secular rationale can't be used to justify the absurd and force the state to pick favorites when it comes to religion.

No, but it can be used to make the state pick between different life choices. And religions are just a subset of the category "life choice". So it's still the same thing just from an even broader category.

"MUH RELIGION!" can be used to justify absolutely anything, which is why the state should never accept it as an argument.

Same goes for "MUH LIFE CHOICE!". Which is what vegetarianism is.

Both are a case of people saying "I am special and you must accommodate me!" It's just the excuse that changes.

Boiling it down to simply an "excuse" is rather dishonest.

[Aelex]

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.

To be fair, it's already the case. There are only two subject that you're if not forbidden, at least very discouraged to talk about, which are money and religion.
In the mean time, we don't care about the affair of our mayors, deputy or presidents and sex in general isn't as shunned as in the Anglo-Saxon world.
So, I guess that it's just a simple cultural difference which had it's plus and it's minus.

[Fartsniffage]

You have yet to explain how enforcing Laïcité amounts to state atheism.

I don't think it does. I never said it did other than in a tongue in cheek reply. I said that Ostro was confusing secularism and state atheism.

[Qanchia]

Odd that this is portrayed as an attempt to create a "white Christian France" when there is nothing white or Christian about eating pork. Secularism has been part of French political tradition for a long time, and upholding it is not "white" or "Christian".

[Valystria]

Odd that this is portrayed as an attempt to create a "white Christian France" when there is nothing white or Christian about eating pork. Secularism has been part of French political tradition for a long time, and upholding it is not "white" or "Christian".

Blame the Guardian for framing it in such a dishonest way, along with having made it look like the meals are pork all day every day.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

Because there are dangerous groups of Muslims.

They aren't the majority by any means whatsoever. No matter what some failed abortion from the National Front says.

It's the Fear of the Brown Peril. Like how there used to be Fear of the Yellow Peril.

Ironically enough given many of Islam's adherents are in Asia....

[Imperializt Russia]

Such is the illusion of choice.

So they really don't have a choice? They are being forced to eat it? What?

When you're given a shitty choice for no real reason other than to be given a shitty choice, and expected by the likes of you that they're grateful that the still have "a choice", this is what we call the "illusion of choice".

There isn't really a choice. There used to be a choice. A perfectly amicable choice that was a problem for literally no-one. Now there isn't.
One viable option is not "choice".

[Arcturus Novus]

I hate the French right-wing movement with a passion.

[Valystria]

So they really don't have a choice? They are being forced to eat it? What?

When you're given a shitty choice for no real reason other than to be given a shitty choice, and expected by the likes of you that they're grateful that the still have "a choice", this is what we call the "illusion of choice".

There isn't really a choice. There used to be a choice. A perfectly amicable choice that was a problem for literally no-one. Now there isn't.
One viable option is not "choice".

Yes it is.

[Ostroeuropa]

So they really don't have a choice? They are being forced to eat it? What?

When you're given a shitty choice for no real reason other than to be given a shitty choice, and expected by the likes of you that they're grateful that the still have "a choice", this is what we call the "illusion of choice".

There isn't really a choice. There used to be a choice. A perfectly amicable choice that was a problem for literally no-one. Now there isn't.
One viable option is not "choice".

There are a variety of side orders to choose from.

[Galloism]

I have a question for people who might be more familiar with French schools.

Do you charge your students for their food like we do here in the states, or are the meals free to students?