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

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

"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!

No one is asking for you to codify Sharia law in the French legal code. People are asking you to provide a non-pork alternative in schools on the days that pork is served so that Muslims and Jews are not unjustly inconvenienced. Doesn't seem like too much to do to me....

[The Alexanderians]

"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!

I've had beef with France before this don't you worry I won't be showing up until I'm treated as an equal. Their human rights need a severe reboot.

[Jochistan]

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.

"religious muslims" means fundamentalists I take it.

great.

[Olerand]

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.

Oh I'm sure they care. Do they care more about that than living in France, however, that is the question. We don't really care how strongly they believe in the religious mandate to cover themselves up lest they entice lust. If they can't "disobey their God" then it's really, once again, not our problem.

Indeed, and bon voyage.

The pan-European institutions are under more criticisms and threat today than they have ever been since their inception. I think pan-European institutions should worry a little more about the rise of the radical right in Sweden, Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands, France etc. than they should about the religious obligation to have women cover from head to toe.

[Valystria]

"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!

I'll add that the above is civic nationalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_nationalism

It's not xenophobia at all.

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!

No one is asking for you to codify Sharia law in the French legal code. People are asking you to provide a non-pork alternative in schools on the days that pork is served so that Muslims and Jews are not unjustly inconvenienced. Doesn't seem like too much to do to me....

Not going to happen. There's no obligation to provide non-pork alternatives when doing so would be giving religions special treatment.

[Salus Maior]

I've had beef with France...

On a thread about Pork?

[The Alexanderians]

I've had beef with France...

On a thread about Pork?

Well I'm certainly not porking them

[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.

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.

We did? Where? And who did I blame, why would I blame anyone? I haven't blamed anyone. I simply question by what right or perceived superiority does America or Britain or whomever pass judgment like this on a ECHR approved law?

[Galloism]

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.

There are a non negligible number of NSG denizens who think that love does not exist. You may personally feel that way, but you are still making unreasonable demands with the whole niqab ban, which is what him and I were discussing.

In any case, any of these demands is a really tall order that should not be demanded except with dire need, and we should not be surprised if they deny you. As much as possible, we should avoid making unreasonable demands of people.


The pork thing I'm kind of ambivalent on, other than to tell the school that it's being, collectively, a dick.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

No one is asking for you to codify Sharia law in the French legal code. People are asking you to provide a non-pork alternative in schools on the days that pork is served so that Muslims and Jews are not unjustly inconvenienced. Doesn't seem like too much to do to me....

Not going to happen. There's no obligation to provide non-pork alternatives when doing so would be giving religions special treatment.

Muslims and Jews pay to go to those schools. Meals are part of the cost of attending the school. By refusing to serve them a meal that they can eat you are more or less stealing money from them. I would say not getting your money stolen is more of a right and less of special treatment.

[Galloism]

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.

We did? Where? And who did I blame, why would I blame anyone? I haven't blamed anyone. I simply question by what right or perceived superiority does America or Britain or whomever pass judgment like this on a ECHR approved law?

Anyone who values personal liberty and individual rights can see that France is, as a nation, being a dick on these issues.

[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.

"religious muslims" means fundamentalists I take it.

great.

Yes.

There are moderate Muslims who don't take issue with eating pork.

[Olerand]

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!

No one is asking for you to codify Sharia law in the French legal code. People are asking you to provide a non-pork alternative in schools on the days that pork is served so that Muslims and Jews are not unjustly inconvenienced. Doesn't seem like too much to do to me....

Again, inconvenienced, we don't owe anyone that. A vegetarian option should be provided, and no special accommodation for religions accepted. They have food, and no exemptions. Problem solved.

[The Alexanderians]

No one is asking for you to codify Sharia law in the French legal code. People are asking you to provide a non-pork alternative in schools on the days that pork is served so that Muslims and Jews are not unjustly inconvenienced. Doesn't seem like too much to do to me....

Again, inconvenienced, we don't owe anyone that. A vegetarian option should be provided, and no special accommodation for religions accepted. They have food, and no exemptions. Problem solved.

You owe them as citizens of your nation.

[Olerand]

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!

I've had beef with France before this don't you worry I won't be showing up until I'm treated as an equal. Their human rights need a severe reboot.

And who should mandate this change? America? Britain? According to whose laws and definitions? By what right? Do America and Britain have such good records that they can mandate their decisions on others?

[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.

"religious muslims" means fundamentalists I take it.

great.

Yes. All those who seem to think their religious beliefs have prime importance over the law. Of all religions.

[Jochistan]

"religious muslims" means fundamentalists I take it.

great.

Yes.

There are moderate Muslims who don't take issue with eating pork.

kek. not too many of 'em. even moderate muslims avoid that shit like the plague.

And non-fundamentalist muslims are not real Muslims? Gotcha.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

No one is asking for you to codify Sharia law in the French legal code. People are asking you to provide a non-pork alternative in schools on the days that pork is served so that Muslims and Jews are not unjustly inconvenienced. Doesn't seem like too much to do to me....

Again, inconvenienced, we don't owe anyone that. A vegetarian option should be provided, and no special accommodation for religions accepted. They have food, and no exemptions. Problem solved.

OK. We should force you to sit in 5 hours of traffic every morning due to your religious beliefs while people of other creeds speed by you on uncontested superhighways. Its just an inconvenience, nothing more.

[Fartsniffage]

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.

We did? Where? And who did I blame, why would I blame anyone? I haven't blamed anyone. I simply question by what right or perceived superiority does America or Britain or whomever pass judgment like this on a ECHR approved law?

Your history is very suspect. As a continent we have a history of being really rather shitty to the religions the government of the time isn't keen on. You seem happy for that to continue, I'm not.

As an atheist I'm more than happy for reasonable concessions to be made for those who choose to follow a religion. You're not. You are a bigot.

[Valystria]

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.

There are a non negligible number of NSG denizens who think that love does not exist. You may personally feel that way, but you are still making unreasonable demands with the whole niqab ban, which is what him and I were discussing.

In any case, any of these demands is a really tall order that should not be demanded except with dire need, and we should not be surprised if they deny you. As much as possible, we should avoid making unreasonable demands of people.


The pork thing I'm kind of ambivalent on, other than to tell the school that it's being, collectively, a dick.

About the love thing, that can be reduced to neurochemical processes taking place in the brain. The process exists. When there is evidence naysayers can be rebuked.

On the niqab ban, hm... it can also be argued that wearing niqabs is unreasonable.

Again, inconvenienced, we don't owe anyone that. A vegetarian option should be provided, and no special accommodation for religions accepted. They have food, and no exemptions. Problem solved.

You owe them as citizens of your nation.

Owe them what? Food? They have access to food same as everyone else does. What they aren't owed is accomodations for their religious beliefs.

[Olerand]

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).

Anglo-Saxon is a broader term, present in continental Europe that makes the distinction between Britain and British inspired (USA, Canada, Australia, NZ) nations and their way of doing things, and the European way. It does not refer to the historic Anglo-Saxons.

[The Alexanderians]

I've had beef with France before this don't you worry I won't be showing up until I'm treated as an equal. Their human rights need a severe reboot.

And who should mandate this change? America? Britain? According to whose laws and definitions? By what right? Do America and Britain have such good records that they can mandate their decisions on others?

Who says America or Britian should? I'm saying that a decent person's definitions should be used, not the current way France's failing personal and civic rights are. Past records really shouldn't effect current issues either but that's besides the point.

[Fartsniffage]

I've had beef with France before this don't you worry I won't be showing up until I'm treated as an equal. Their human rights need a severe reboot.

And who should mandate this change? America? Britain? According to whose laws and definitions? By what right? Do America and Britain have such good records that they can mandate their decisions on others?

Sprichst du deutsch?

[The Alexanderians]

There are a non negligible number of NSG denizens who think that love does not exist. You may personally feel that way, but you are still making unreasonable demands with the whole niqab ban, which is what him and I were discussing.

In any case, any of these demands is a really tall order that should not be demanded except with dire need, and we should not be surprised if they deny you. As much as possible, we should avoid making unreasonable demands of people.


The pork thing I'm kind of ambivalent on, other than to tell the school that it's being, collectively, a dick.

About the love thing, that can be reduced to neurochemical processes taking place in the brain. The process exists. When there is evidence naysayers can be rebuked.

On the niqab ban, hm... it also be argued that wearing niqabs is unreasonable.

You owe them as citizens of your nation.

Owe them what? Food? They have access to food same as everyone else does. What they aren't owed is accomodations for their religious beliefs.

No but someone's religious beliefs need to be respected so long as it harms no one.

[Valystria]

Yes.

There are moderate Muslims who don't take issue with eating pork.

kek. not too many of 'em. even moderate muslims avoid that shit like the plague.

And non-fundamentalist muslims are not real Muslims? Gotcha.

No, but if you want to make that strawman go ahead.

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).

Anglo-Saxon is a broader term, present in continental Europe that makes the distinction between Britain and British inspired (USA, Canada, Australia, NZ) nations and their way of doing things, and the European way. It does not refer to the historic Anglo-Saxons.

You may want to refer to those nations as the Anglosphere instead. It's more specific to what you were referring to.