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

[Olerand]

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.

I don't think WWII, a war started with Germany's invasion of Poland for lebensraum (a concept America and its people should be more than familiar with), and that the United States decided to sit out despite knowing of the terrible calamities occurring in Europe -and rejecting Jewish refugees too- until Japan's attack on it forced it to actually get involved, was about Jews' right to put their women in face to toe black garments lest they entice lust in men. Nor was the holocaust really. So, no, I don't believe we did.

[Olerand]

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.

It is a special accommodation given to a group due to their religious restrictions, religions that the Republic supposedly does not even recognize. It's good that special exemption was abolished, and it should be replace by a vegetarian option.

[Fartsniffage]

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.

Why should anyone have to? The mayor in this case should have included them as part of his secular cleansing of the school meals. He didn't. You're defending a political anti-religious attack.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

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.

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.

So your basically saying its OK to inconvenience someone simply because of their religious beliefs. Next your going to say that "gluten free options for school meals don't belong either! why should we cater to people with medical issues?" Its really simple: if there is a school meals program, it should be available for all, even if that means making a small amount of kosher/halaal meals. I don't see what is so hard to grasp about that.

[The Alexanderians]

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.

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.

Yeah great! Let's structure our only option around alienating minorities! What could possibly go wrong!
France has a terrible track record with minorities, Muslims especially, this isn't some isolated incident that merely looks bad this is a continuing trend of straight up xenophobia.

[Uelvan]

Well, it don't change much weither if you're in a private or public school.
In both case, you pay each month for the number of meals ate by your child (to which is added a "forfait" of between 40 to 100 euro, that you pay only once, if you eat in a private school); each meal costing between 4 and 6 euro usually.
To the total price of all the meal is substracted some percentage (between 5% to 50%) if your family is poor or big (more than 4 children) and, in the case of private schools, if some of your siblings are eating too.

This may seem a little complicated but I'll give you an exemple.

For a public school where the price of the meal is 4,70 euro.

Jean is eating Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. He's part of a well-off family and is an only child.

4,70X4X4= 75.2

He thus pay 75.2 euro.

Joachim, him, is eating every day. His family is rather poor and he got two brother and one little sister.

4.70X5X4 = 94
94X(10% + 10%) = 18.8
94-18.8 = 75.2

He thus pay 75.2 euro too thanks to the cuts.

Ok, so if they don't eat, they don't have to pay. That's what I wanted to know.

Ok, not a big deal then - it's not acting as an additional tax on the family. If they had to pay for the food regardless of whether they ate or not (IE, monthly plan - seen some private schools do that) then this would constitute an additional "attendance fee" on muslim families.

Thankfully, that's not the case.

Still kinda sucks for families who are on some assisted meal program (assuming France has those).

[Olerand]

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


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.

So your basically saying its OK to inconvenience someone simply because of their religious beliefs. Next your going to say that "gluten free options for school meals don't belong either! why should we cater to people with medical issues?" Its really simple: if there is a school meals program, it should be available for all, even if that means making a small amount of kosher/halaal meals. I don't see what is so hard to grasp about that.

Since when are we tied to not "inconveniencing" someone's religious beliefs? Truly the Anglo-Saxon world is overshooting with their submission to cultural relativism.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

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

I don't think WWII, a war started with Germany's invasion of Poland for lebensraum (a concept America and its people should be more than familiar with), and that the United States decided to sit out despite knowing of the terrible calamities occurring in Europe -and rejecting Jewish refugees too- until Japan's attack on it forced it to actually get involved, was about Jews' right to put their women in face to toe black garments lest they entice lust in men. Nor was the holocaust really. So, no, I don't believe we did.

Oh please. Totally unnecessary to attack America there. I'd suggest you don't throw rocks in your glass house Frenchman. Need I remind you that your own country was notorious for collaborating with the Nazis, with the Vichy government deporting Jews even before the Nazis asked them too? Do I need to further remind you that the famed Resistance was woefully outnumbered by collaborators? Knock it off with your needless America bashing: its rather rude to insult a country that shed blood to save you from occupation.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

So your basically saying its OK to inconvenience someone simply because of their religious beliefs. Next your going to say that "gluten free options for school meals don't belong either! why should we cater to people with medical issues?" Its really simple: if there is a school meals program, it should be available for all, even if that means making a small amount of kosher/halaal meals. I don't see what is so hard to grasp about that.

Since when are we tied to not "inconveniencing" someone's religious beliefs? Truly the Anglo-Saxon world is overshooting with their submission to cultural relativism.

Actually, we just believe in human rights. Unlike France, apparently.

[Olerand]

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


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.

Yeah great! Let's structure our only option around alienating minorities! What could possibly go wrong!
France has a terrible track record with minorities, Muslims especially, this isn't some isolated incident that merely looks bad this is a continuing trend of straight up xenophobia.

You're right, which is why religious Muslims whose rights are being violated by the French Republic should cross the Channel. The United Kingdom will bend over backwards to not inconvenience them, without even having any better integration than France does to boot! Marvelous, truly.

[Valystria]

So your basically saying its OK to inconvenience someone simply because of their religious beliefs. Next your going to say that "gluten free options for school meals don't belong either! why should we cater to people with medical issues?" Its really simple: if there is a school meals program, it should be available for all, even if that means making a small amount of kosher/halaal meals. I don't see what is so hard to grasp about that.

Since when are we tied to not "inconveniencing" someone's religious beliefs? Truly the Anglo-Saxon world is overshooting with their submission to cultural relativism.

Indeed. But there are those of us in the Anglosphere who fully agree with and are envious of France's Laïcité.

[Olerand]

I don't think WWII, a war started with Germany's invasion of Poland for lebensraum (a concept America and its people should be more than familiar with), and that the United States decided to sit out despite knowing of the terrible calamities occurring in Europe -and rejecting Jewish refugees too- until Japan's attack on it forced it to actually get involved, was about Jews' right to put their women in face to toe black garments lest they entice lust in men. Nor was the holocaust really. So, no, I don't believe we did.

Oh please. Totally unnecessary to attack America there. I'd suggest you don't throw rocks in your glass house Frenchman. Need I remind you that your own country was notorious for collaborating with the Nazis, with the Vichy government deporting Jews even before the Nazis asked them too? Do I need to further remind you that the famed Resistance was woefully outnumbered by collaborators? Knock it off with your needless America bashing: its rather rude to insult a country that shed blood to save you from occupation.

Certainly. That's why I don't give lectures to others, nor do I reference how America experienced so and so in so and so era.

[Jochistan]

Guys, This is a misunderstanding. It's only one or a couple days a week.

It's really not as bad as you think.

The School has certain "pig-only days" where they eat pork. Those days do not happen every day. Where chicken, beef etc is served as normal.

It's not every day of the week, the school cafeterias are not banned from serving non-pork meats. I mean, if that was the case, this would actually be bad. ( although I highly doubt the positions of the "militant secularists" here would change much)

[Olerand]

Since when are we tied to not "inconveniencing" someone's religious beliefs? Truly the Anglo-Saxon world is overshooting with their submission to cultural relativism.

Actually, we just believe in human rights. Unlike France, apparently.

Well, French and European courts think no human rights were violated. Until we are judged under American jurisdiction, we'll stick by those decisions.

[The Alexanderians]

Yeah great! Let's structure our only option around alienating minorities! What could possibly go wrong!
France has a terrible track record with minorities, Muslims especially, this isn't some isolated incident that merely looks bad this is a continuing trend of straight up xenophobia.

You're right, which is why religious Muslims whose rights are being violated by the French Republic should cross the Channel. The United Kingdom will bend over backwards to not inconvenience them, without even having any better integration than France does to boot! Marvelous, truly.

"France for the french" sounds suspiciously like xenophobia to me.

[Valystria]

Since when are we tied to not "inconveniencing" someone's religious beliefs? Truly the Anglo-Saxon world is overshooting with their submission to cultural relativism.

Actually, we just believe in human rights. Unlike France, apparently.

Because providing faith-based meal options is somehow a human right.
No. It's a religious accommodation that doesn't need to be provided or respected.

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


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.

Yeah great! Let's structure our only option around alienating minorities! What could possibly go wrong!
France has a terrible track record with minorities, Muslims especially, this isn't some isolated incident that merely looks bad this is a continuing trend of straight up xenophobia.

Not all minorities are religious, so no it's not about alienating minorities. The purpose of the policy change is to stop giving religious minorities a special accommodation.

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


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.

So your basically saying its OK to inconvenience someone simply because of their religious beliefs. Next your going to say that "gluten free options for school meals don't belong either! why should we cater to people with medical issues?" Its really simple: if there is a school meals program, it should be available for all, even if that means making a small amount of kosher/halaal meals. I don't see what is so hard to grasp about that.

These people are inconveniencing themselves from their own religious beliefs.

It's fallacious reasoning to compare this to medical needs. Medical dietary needs are rational and necessary. Religious delusions are not rational or necessary, and a secular state should not be expected to structure school meals around faith-based dieting.

[Olerand]

Guys, This is a misunderstanding. It's only one or a couple days a week.

It's really not as bad as you think.

The School has certain "pig-only days" where they eat pork. Those days do not happen every day. Where chicken, beef etc is served as normal.

It's not every day of the week, the school cafeterias are not banned from serving non-pork meats. I mean, if that was the case, this would actually be bad. ( although I highly doubt the positions of the "militant secularists" here would change much)

This is a non-issue in the first place. This issue was covered in the French press in literally short articles, and caused no disturbance in the media cycle. But as I have already said, Anglo-Saxon liberals have taken the broad defense of Islam(again, a privilege not afforded to other conservative patriarchical religions) as a fundmental raison d'être for them. Thus this non-issue becomes one.

[Valystria]

You're right, which is why religious Muslims whose rights are being violated by the French Republic should cross the Channel. The United Kingdom will bend over backwards to not inconvenience them, without even having any better integration than France does to boot! Marvelous, truly.

"France for the french" sounds suspiciously like xenophobia to me.

It's nice that no one is implying that?

But sure, there's no obligation to structure meal policies around accommodating religious minorities.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

You're right, which is why religious Muslims whose rights are being violated by the French Republic should cross the Channel. The United Kingdom will bend over backwards to not inconvenience them, without even having any better integration than France does to boot! Marvelous, truly.

"France for the french" sounds suspiciously like xenophobia to me.

Sounds an awful lot like "Germany for Germans" to me.

[Galloism]

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,

I don't think you have any idea how important people find serving their god. There were people in Germany who went into concentration camps instead of disobey their god that could leave at any time if they did. In America, you can find people who served long prison sentences and were subjected to mob violence once they got out because they wouldn't disobey their god and go to war.

Saying "well, just disobey your God!" is not an answer. It's as silly as saying to a fat person "well, just go on a fast!" or to a person deeply in love with his/her spouse "well, just betray him/her!"

It's delusional.

or cross the Channel.

Yeah, they could do that - seek out a place where liberte, egalite, and fraternite are principles that are followed.

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.

What? What continued survival? What are you talking about?

And yes, following religious precepts is a fundamental human right, provided it doesn't harm others. We tend to really find that shit important. Even the EU does, at least in principle.

[Salus Maior]

Guys, This is a misunderstanding. It's only one or a couple days a week.

It's really not as bad as you think.

The School has certain "pig-only days" where they eat pork. Those days do not happen every day. Where chicken, beef etc is served as normal.

It's not every day of the week, the school cafeterias are not banned from serving non-pork meats. I mean, if that was the case, this would actually be bad. ( although I highly doubt the positions of the "militant secularists" here would change much)

This is a non-issue in the first place. This issue was covered in the French press in literally short articles, and caused no disturbance in the media cycle. But as I have already said, Anglo-Saxon liberals have taken the broad defense of Islam(again, a privilege not afforded to other conservative patriarchical religions) as a fundmental raison d'être for them. Thus this non-issue becomes one.

If you're going to keep calling it "Anglo-Saxon" as opposed to "English" you should at least call yourselves "Franks". It makes about as much sense. They're both dead cultures (or have been evolved past, rather).

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

"Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité".... you need to update your motto, France. "Falling short of our Ideals since 1789" sounds more accurate.

[Olerand]

You're right, which is why religious Muslims whose rights are being violated by the French Republic should cross the Channel. The United Kingdom will bend over backwards to not inconvenience them, without even having any better integration than France does to boot! Marvelous, truly.

"France for the french" sounds suspiciously like xenophobia to me.

France is for the culturally French. There are people in Tunis who believe in the French Republic's values, without having stepped a single foot in France, and who deserve to be French. Conversely, there are some French citizens in Marseille who feel that France is unfit, and should be replaced by a system that takes their religious demands to law, and those people really should try their luck elsewhere.

France is for those who believe they are French and believe in the values of the Republic. If demanding that a nation have a shared set of values; as has been the case for literally all of millennia until the 1990s and the rise of this liberal leftism on American college campuses and in academia; is xenophobia then this is legally backed xenophobia, and it's really best to avoid our country then. Adieu!

[Fartsniffage]

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

I don't think WWII, a war started with Germany's invasion of Poland for lebensraum (a concept America and its people should be more than familiar with), and that the United States decided to sit out despite knowing of the terrible calamities occurring in Europe -and rejecting Jewish refugees too- until Japan's attack on it forced it to actually get involved, was about Jews' right to put their women in face to toe black garments lest they entice lust in men. Nor was the holocaust really. So, no, I don't believe we did.

Yes we did. And we decided as a continent that religious persecution was a really shitty thing to do. Don't blame other countries for Frances regression into horrific religious discrimination, you've only yourselves to blame.

[Valystria]

I don't think WWII, a war started with Germany's invasion of Poland for lebensraum (a concept America and its people should be more than familiar with), and that the United States decided to sit out despite knowing of the terrible calamities occurring in Europe -and rejecting Jewish refugees too- until Japan's attack on it forced it to actually get involved, was about Jews' right to put their women in face to toe black garments lest they entice lust in men. Nor was the holocaust really. So, no, I don't believe we did.

Oh please. Totally unnecessary to attack America there. I'd suggest you don't throw rocks in your glass house Frenchman. Need I remind you that your own country was notorious for collaborating with the Nazis, with the Vichy government deporting Jews even before the Nazis asked them too? Do I need to further remind you that the famed Resistance was woefully outnumbered by collaborators? Knock it off with your needless America bashing: its rather rude to insult a country that shed blood to save you from occupation.

It's rather rude to impose your country's value of accommodating religion upon a secular country that doesn't want to do that.

Not our problem. Easiest solution, take off the niqab,

I don't think you have any idea how important people find serving their god. There were people in Germany who went into concentration camps instead of disobey their god that could leave at any time if they did. In America, you can find people who served long prison sentences and were subjected to mob violence once they got out because they wouldn't disobey their god and go to war.

Saying "well, just disobey your God!" is not an answer. It's as silly as saying to a fat person "well, just go on a fast!" or to a person deeply in love with his/her spouse "well, just betray her!"

It's delusional.

Well, see, the fat person could go on a fast. The person in love with their spouse could betray them. These situations exist. An imaginary deity does not.
It's not our concern to care for how someone may feel about not living up to their imaginary deity's bizarre dietary rules. A secular state shouldn't need to accommodate such preferences.

"Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité".... you need to update your motto, France. "Falling short of our Ideals since 1789" sounds more accurate.

I see you're not aware of France's history of secularism.