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

[Jochistan]

"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.

So non-fundamentalists that hold themselves above the law aren't real muslims then?

Top Hon.

[Rio Cana]

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?

Well, it's not free but it's not that costly neither even if it vary depending 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.

I thought the food served in French Public schools was free and only French private schools had to pay. On our island, public schools provide free breakfast and lunch.

[Valystria]

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.


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.

No...
Religious beliefs don't need to be respected. There's no obligation for a secular state to do so.

[Valystria]

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

So non-fundamentalists that hold themselves above the law aren't real muslims then?

Top Hon.

I don't see how that was implied at all.

If anything there was a recognition that the religious can place secular law above that of their religious laws. That doesn't mean those religious people aren't real adherents to their religion.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Well, it's not free but it's not that costly neither even if it vary depending 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.

I thought the food served in French Public schools was free and only French private schools had to pay. On our island, public schools provide free breakfast and lunch.

Even if it is "free" you still pay for it through taxes.

[Salus Maior]

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

To who? You?

[Olerand]

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.

True. The supremacy of extreme individualism to the detriment of literally all else is not (yet perhaps) as strong in France as it is in America or Britain. Most French people see that as a positive, I understand if you disagree.

[The Alexanderians]

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

No...
Religious beliefs don't need to be respected. There's no obligation for a secular state to do so.

I don't think you understand what secular is then, you seem to think it's "anti-theist". What are you going for next? Forced conversation?

[Olerand]

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.

No, you pay for your meals as you use them. If you don't eat any, you don't pay for any.

[Valystria]

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

To who? You?

If I wanted to, sure.

No...
Religious beliefs don't need to be respected. There's no obligation for a secular state to do so.

I don't think you understand what secular is then, you seem to think it's "anti-theist". What are you going for next? Forced conversation?

Providing special religious accommodations isn't secularism. You're thinking of pluralism.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

No...
Religious beliefs don't need to be respected. There's no obligation for a secular state to do so.

I don't think you understand what secular is then, you seem to think it's "anti-theist". What are you going for next? Forced conversation?

I don't think you understand either "secular" or "respect" mean.

[Olerand]

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.

Oh, a dreadful insult. Oh well. As your nation accommodates, we won't, and only time will tell who comes out better in the end. Judging by the present, no one is really better than us. Not America and its sordid history with Islam (or immigrants in general), or Britain and its acceptance of grooming rings, or anyone really. We pass no judgment, and we expect the same.

[Valystria]

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.

I value personal liberty and individual rights and I don't see it that way. I see France as being quite reasonable.

[The Alexanderians]

I don't think you understand what secular is then, you seem to think it's "anti-theist". What are you going for next? Forced conversation?

I don't think you understand either "secular" or "respect" mean.

denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

A secular government is one that doesn't base itself around or treat one religion better or more fondly than another. Letting people have options that don't violate a reasonable religious practice is still completely allowed in a secular society.

[The Alexanderians]

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.

No, you pay for your meals as you use them. If you don't eat any, you don't pay for any.

Yeah we should totally let them starve instead

[Jochistan]

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

I value personal liberty and individual rights and I don't see it that way. I see France as being quite reasonable.

Considering this really wasn't that extreme an issue, yeah.

[Valystria]

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.

You sure you don't want to be calling the adherents of the religions asking for special accommodations as the bigots? It's them with the arguably bigoted beliefs after all.

[Olerand]

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?

No. Wish that I did though, that nation does dominate Europe today.

[Galloism]

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

I value personal liberty and individual rights and I don't see it that way. I see France as being quite reasonable.

Then you do not value personal liberty or individual rights if you think banning them in the name of "culture" is reasonable.

[Valystria]

No, you pay for your meals as you use them. If you don't eat any, you don't pay for any.

Yeah we should totally let them starve instead

They can bring their own meals or eat the side dishes.

[The Alexanderians]

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.

You sure you don't want to be calling the adherents of the religions asking for special accommodations as the bigots? It's them with the arguably bigoted beliefs after all.

So? Even if they were the bigots you seem to think they are, why should their rights be infringed?

[Valystria]

I value personal liberty and individual rights and I don't see it that way. I see France as being quite reasonable.

Then you do not value personal liberty or individual rights if you think banning them in the name of "culture" is reasonable.

It's in the name of secularism, not culture.

[Olerand]

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

So non-fundamentalists that hold themselves above the law aren't real muslims then?

Top Hon.

What? I don't believe I said that. If you hold yourself above the law because you believe you are super special or whatever then you are a sociopath. If you do so because God told you to, then you are a fundamentalist. Neither are only Muslim.

[Valystria]

You sure you don't want to be calling the adherents of the religions asking for special accommodations as the bigots? It's them with the arguably bigoted beliefs after all.

So? Even if they were the bigots you seem to think they are, why should their rights be infringed?

They aren't being infringed. No one is forcing them to eat pork.

What you're wanting to do is forcing the state to provide religions with special accommodations.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Yeah we should totally let them starve instead

They can bring their own meals or eat the side dishes.

Assuming everyone has that opportunity.

What about little kids who don't know how to pack their own lunch and who don't have the family structure where they can have a parent do it for them?

What if someone forgets that a certain day is "pork day" and are stuck at school with the choice of not eating at all, or eating something that violates their deeply-held religious beliefs?

There is literally no justification for what is effectively just pure dickishness.