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

[Fartsniffage]

However, the ban on religious clothing doesn't apply to all religions. That ban was put in place with Islam specifically in mind.

In France, it applies to all religions. Like the other poster noted, I think you are confusing France's application of the ban with that of the US (if any).

What other religions have covering the face as a part of the teachings?

[The Alexanderians]

Next, Muslim students have to wear yellow crescents.

[Fartsniffage]

French Mayor may be giving children cancer....

[Infected Mushroom]

Next, Muslim students have to wear yellow crescents.

No that doesn't follow

[Sun Wukong]

No that doesn't follow

I happen to agree, but I'm reconsidering that now that you said it.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

French Mayor may be giving children cancer....

Meh. Still gonna eat meat.

[Councilmembers]

The social right-wing in western countries, from Trump supporters in the United States to cultural militarists in the EU, stands against progress and empathy for other groups of people. We need to make sure all can live happily in society, free from unneeded prejudice.

[The Alexanderians]

French Mayor may be giving children cancer....

Meh. Still gonna eat meat.

yeah but who's >.>

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Meh. Still gonna eat meat.

yeah but who's >.>

I dunno... whose offering

[Sun Wukong]

yeah but who's >.>

I dunno... whose offering

Hey babe

[Valystria]

Next, Muslim students have to wear yellow crescents.

If you're going to try the slippery slope fallacy at least make it somewhat believable.

No that doesn't follow

I happen to agree, but I'm reconsidering that now that you said it.

Why?

[Olerand]

The social right-wing in western countries, from Trump supporters in the United States to cultural militarists in the EU, stands against progress and empathy for other groups of people. We need to make sure all can live happily in society, free from unneeded prejudice.

Beautiful.

Now, I would suggest you, and fellow liberals, preach your message in the Middle East, events show they need you more than we do.

Bonne chance!

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

I dunno... whose offering

Hey babe

Alright pay up first

[Olerand]

And as you have correctly stated, the Court whose job it is to defend the European Convention on Human Rights judged the ban acceptable. So the issue is moot.

Determining, consequently, that facial coverings are not an integral and protected part of freedom of religion. Problem solved.

Problem exacerbated, not solved. Now women who feel devoutly on that can't leave their homes.

The issue is not moot - court decisions are reversible. At one point in the US, it was legal for students to be compelled to pledge allegiance to our flag. Our highest court confirmed it.

A few years later, SCOTUS reversed itself. For the cause of freedom, I hope the ECHR does so - sooner rather than later. Government endorsed bigotry should be killed.

Not our problem. Easiest solution, take off the niqab, or cross the Channel.

As for the ECHR reversing its ruling, there is no indication of that occurring any time in the foreseeable future; and with the way European politics are going today, pan-European institutions should fight for their continued survival, more so than dictating that the religious obligation that women cover themselves entirely lest they entice lust in men is a fundamental human right.

[Fartsniffage]

Problem exacerbated, not solved. Now women who feel devoutly on that can't leave their homes.

The issue is not moot - court decisions are reversible. At one point in the US, it was legal for students to be compelled to pledge allegiance to our flag. Our highest court confirmed it.

A few years later, SCOTUS reversed itself. For the cause of freedom, I hope the ECHR does so - sooner rather than later. Government endorsed bigotry should be killed.

Not our problem. Easiest solution, take off the niqab, or cross the Channel.

As for the ECHR reversing its ruling, there is no indication of that occurring any time in the foreseeable future; and with the way European politics are going today, pan-European institutions should fight for their continued survival, more so than dictating that the religious obligation that women cover themselves entirely lest they entice lust in men is a fundamental human right.

Didn't we have a pretty nasty disagreement in Europe about the right to practise religion about 70 years ago? I think we did.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Problem exacerbated, not solved. Now women who feel devoutly on that can't leave their homes.

The issue is not moot - court decisions are reversible. At one point in the US, it was legal for students to be compelled to pledge allegiance to our flag. Our highest court confirmed it.

A few years later, SCOTUS reversed itself. For the cause of freedom, I hope the ECHR does so - sooner rather than later. Government endorsed bigotry should be killed.

Not our problem. Easiest solution, take off the niqab, or cross the Channel.

As for the ECHR reversing its ruling, there is no indication of that occurring any time in the foreseeable future; and with the way European politics are going today, pan-European institutions should fight for their continued survival, more so than dictating that the religious obligation that women cover themselves entirely lest they entice lust in men is a fundamental human right.

Honestly though, how is refusing to serve a non-pork meal a good thing? Seems like senseless provocation that achieves little to nothing to me.

[The Alexanderians]

Not our problem. Easiest solution, take off the niqab, or cross the Channel.

As for the ECHR reversing its ruling, there is no indication of that occurring any time in the foreseeable future; and with the way European politics are going today, pan-European institutions should fight for their continued survival, more so than dictating that the religious obligation that women cover themselves entirely lest they entice lust in men is a fundamental human right.

Honestly though, how is refusing to serve a non-pork meal a good thing? Seems like senseless provocation that achieves little to nothing to me.

And what about the veggies and vegans? Don't forget the Jews. Really this crap just shows France's increasing xenophobia, with little regard for collateral.

[Valystria]

Honestly though, how is refusing to serve a non-pork meal a good thing? Seems like senseless provocation that achieves little to nothing to me.

And what about the veggies and vegans? Don't forget the Jews. Really this crap just shows France's increasing xenophobia, with little regard for collateral.

Why should religions get special treatment?

[Fartsniffage]

And what about the veggies and vegans? Don't forget the Jews. Really this crap just shows France's increasing xenophobia, with little regard for collateral.

Why should religions get special treatment?

Veggies and vegan are religious groups now?

[Valystria]

Why should religions get special treatment?

Veggies and vegan are religious groups now?

The Jews part.

If you want to argue for vegetarian options, do so out of of secular reasoning and not religious.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Honestly though, how is refusing to serve a non-pork meal a good thing? Seems like senseless provocation that achieves little to nothing to me.

And what about the veggies and vegans? Don't forget the Jews. Really this crap just shows France's increasing xenophobia, with little regard for collateral.

Where's Liberté, Egalité, and Fraternité? Oh wait, I forgot: that only applies to native-born French-persons.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

And what about the veggies and vegans? Don't forget the Jews. Really this crap just shows France's increasing xenophobia, with little regard for collateral.

Why should religions get special treatment?

Because freedom to practice (or not practice) your religion is an essential human right.

[Crezilivion]

To me them doing this looks like they're just trying to piss the Muslims off. They could just bring lunch if they didn't like the food though, that's what I always did. However, the school wasn't even competent enough to create an accurate lunch menu so no one ever knew what was for lunch. If any of those schools had a lunch mix up then some of those kids might not get to eat that day or they'd end up eating it and then the parents would get angry. Of course, if we didn't have public schools in the first place we wouldn't have this problem. I think that's the root of the problem.

[Jochistan]

The social right-wing in western countries, from Trump supporters in the United States to cultural militarists in the EU, stands against progress and empathy for other groups of people. We need to make sure all can live happily in society, free from unneeded prejudice.

It's only for certain days that they eat pork only.

Most days of the week they carry on as normal.

[Valystria]

And what about the veggies and vegans? Don't forget the Jews. Really this crap just shows France's increasing xenophobia, with little regard for collateral.

Where's Liberté, Egalité, and Fraternité? Oh wait, I forgot: that only applies to native-born French-persons.

You don't seem to understand no one is being forced to eat pork.

Why should religions get special treatment?

Because freedom to practice (or not practice) your religion is an essential human right.

And they are allowed to practice or not practice it. No one is forcing them to eat pork.

The republic has no obligation to structure school meals around faith-based dietary preferences.