EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 540
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
Koorb
France266 Posts
On August 27 2016 05:27 Plansix wrote: Part of living in a secular culture is accepting that people can practice their religion freely. Asking for a non-pork option is not more cumbersome for the state than if the child was allergic to pork. The only reason to force them to eat pork is to assure they don’t go to school any more. No. Living in a secular culture is accepting that people can practice their religion within the boundaries of the law. Full stop. And if said laws restrict a religious practice on valid grounds (social cohesion being one of them), then tough shit for the religious people, being secular means that they have to comply. Question for you and Nyxisto : If a kid really dislikes, for instance, chicken (he's not allergic, his refusal to eat chicken has no religious basis, he just plainly hates it), is he entitled to an alternate dish every time the school serves chicken (like you want muslim kid to do when pork is served) ? | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Koorb
France266 Posts
On August 27 2016 07:26 Nyxisto wrote: Yeah I guess you can and should serve several types of meat and non-meat meals in every school. We're developed nations for the most part, I think we can spend a few pennies on food variety if its being demanded for religious or non-religious reasons. You're eluding my question. Let aside the monetary aspect for a moment, and consider the case of a school that can't provide multiple types of meal to all of its students, and just serves alternate dishes on a case-by-case basis to its students who have either food allergies or religious objections (a quite usual occurrence in countryside little schools for example). Is my fictional chicken-hating kid entitled to his own alternate meal, like muslim kids are when porks is served (according to you ?) | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10131 Posts
Having varied meals, while i don't know how feasible it can be, would be ideal, and allowing kids to secretly eat pork while having access to different dishes would be better than forcing the parents to prepare the meals for them withouth pork. | ||
|
Koorb
France266 Posts
On August 27 2016 07:50 Godwrath wrote: Koorb, force feeding even for health reasons often has the oppossite effect. I understand tho that parents would not be happy about their kids choosing what to eat because they have a hard time trusting their kid can, by his own, learn what to eat, but it is not worth the problems he will have in the long run, specially food aversion which could last their entire lifetime against food they really should eat or would had eaten otherwise. Having varied meals, while i don't know how feasible it can be, would be ideal, and allowing kids to secretly eat pork while having access to different dishes would be better than forcing the parents to prepare the meals for them withouth pork. No one has ever called for muslim children to be force-fed pork. Many, on the other hand, have argued that when they are served a meat they don't like, they simply put it aside and eat the starter, vegetables and dessert, like every other kid do when they are served a meal they don't like for whatever reason. And that they don't demand an alternate meat to suit their preferences, a privilege that is not awarded to non-muslim kids. That was the point of the question in my previous post. Unless you sincerely believe that every kid has the right to demand that he/she be served meals that 100% suits his/her preferences (an obviously unrealistic option), then there is no reason to give special treatment to muslim kids. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
stilt
France2751 Posts
On August 27 2016 07:50 Godwrath wrote: Koorb, force feeding even for health reasons often has the oppossite effect. I understand tho that parents would not be happy about their kids choosing what to eat because they have a hard time trusting their kid can, by his own, learn what to eat, but it is not worth the problems he will have in the long run, specially food aversion which could last their entire lifetime against food they really should eat or would had eaten otherwise. Having varied meals, while i don't know how feasible it can be, would be ideal, and allowing kids to secretly eat pork while having access to different dishes would be better than forcing the parents to prepare the meals for them withouth pork. You're basically calling for special rights citizens. In a neutral place as schools, laws must the same for all, this is the french conception of politics at least. | ||
|
stilt
France2751 Posts
| ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10131 Posts
On August 27 2016 08:08 Koorb wrote: No one has ever called for muslim children to be force-fed pork. Many, on the other hand, have argued that when they are served a meat they don't like, they simply put it aside and eat the starter, vegetables and dessert, like every other kid do when they are served a meal they don't like for whatever reason. And that they don't demand an alternate meat to suit their preferences, a privilege that is not awarded to non-muslim kids. That was the point of the question in my previous post. Unless you sincerely believe that every kid has the right to demand that he/she be served meals that 100% suits his/her preferences (an obviously unrealistic option), then there is no reason to give special treatment to muslim kids. I missunderstood you. And to your second paragraph,I think it would be desirable, yes, atleast to have a good range on food variety. And obviously the muslim kid wouldn't need a special treatment because he, like other kids, has a choice, one of which can be to move away from the religious customs of his family, or just continue with it and not eat pork. On August 27 2016 08:13 stilt wrote: You're basically calling for special rights citizens. In a neutral place as schools, laws must the same for all, this is the french conception of politics at least. How so ? Here i was thinking that what i am speaking about is actually not having special rights citizens. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Koorb
France266 Posts
On August 27 2016 08:11 Nyxisto wrote: Well yes, there is. It's a religion. Being 'not a Muslim' isn't something that can be catered to because it isn't actually a thing. If you want some special food found a world religion and thousand five hundred years later we can serve you what you want in school. It's like if you play soccer your school might get a soccer field because it's a very popular sport. Well there you go, I've finally got you to admit that you're not secular at all. Because in a secular society, citizens don't get special rights depending on their religious affiliation - or lack thereof ! | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10131 Posts
On August 27 2016 08:28 Plansix wrote: Having an alternative option for pork isn't a special right. Any student could ask to eat it if they wanted. At least that is how it works in the US. That's not how it works in France, neither in Spain for that matter. There is a first dish, second dish and a dessert. You can't choose what you eat. So yeah, it would be a special right to be able to. Hence why i was talking about diversifying the menus. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On August 27 2016 08:25 Koorb wrote: Well there you go, I've finally got you to admit that you're not secular at all. Because in a secular society, citizens don't get special rights depending on their religious affiliation - or lack thereof ! I am very secular. Being able to practice your religion, that means having positive rights that empower you to actually live out your religion is a secular value. It's at the core of every constitutional right. Freedom of speech is meaningless if every private institution and every place can start banning stuff. Nobody would argue that freedom of speech exists in a nation where the only place to actually speak freely is your house. No right is meaningful if the government and society do not guarantee you places and some support so that you can actually exercise them. | ||
|
Koorb
France266 Posts
On August 27 2016 08:54 Nyxisto wrote: I am very secular. Being able to practice your religion, that means having positive rights that empower you to actually live out your religion is a secular value. It's at the core of every constitutional right. Freedom of speech is meaningless if every private institution and every place can start banning stuff. Nobody would argue that freedom of speech exists in a nation where the only place to actually speak freely is your house. No right is meaningful if the government and society do not guarantee you places and some support so that you can actually exercise them. No, simply no. By every definition of the word, secularism implies eliminating discrimination on the basis of religion. Which rules out enshrining into law and into social practices different rights for citizens based on their beliefs. These "religious positive rights" you mentioned can't constitute the legal basis of a difference of treatment between citizens of different faith, or lack thereof. If you truly believe it does, then you're not secular. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Equality principles like secularism mean "equal treatment for that which is equal". In this case. treat all religions equally, if you have none that's fine too. It doesn't mean we can't try to help accommodate people better if they need something It's comparable to saying we shouldn't promote art or politics in school because you happen to not be an artist and uninterested in politics and know you feel disadvantaged because you're not getting anything out of it. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On August 27 2016 07:26 Nyxisto wrote: Yeah I guess you can and should serve several types of meat and non-meat meals in every school. We're developed nations for the most part, I think we can spend a few pennies on food variety if its being demanded for religious or non-religious reasons. HO THE HYPOCRISY. The reason why those mayors changed the menu for unique choice was for budgetary reasons. So Germany is pushing us to reduce deficit on one part, but it is not okay when we propose less choice in cantines ? On August 27 2016 09:36 Nyxisto wrote: But there is no different treatment based on belief, meaning that one belief is discriminated compared to another. If you're an atheist you simply have no belief. that means we can't cater to you. That's like saying you don't want athletes to get special treatment because you weigh 300 pounds and it doesn't benefit you. Equality principles like secularism mean "equal treatment for that which is equal". In this case. treat all religions equally, if you have none that's fine too. It doesn't mean we can't try to help accommodate people better if they need something It's comparable to saying we shouldn't promote art or politics in school because you happen to not be an artist and uninterested in politics and know you feel disadvantaged because you're not getting anything out of it. You are thinking from a cult (collective and institutionnalized) standpoint - something the laïcité does not acknowledge. From an individual standpoint, I can be a pagan and believe that hot sauce is a work of nature that must be spread thin on every meal and my belief have the same value as any kind of belief. Don't discriminate me yo. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
| ||
