eat pork or go hungry...

it seems some people are sick of the special demands made by other groups...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597082/Eat-pork-hungry-Frances-far-right-National-Front-leader-tells-schools-stop-offering-religious-alternatives-canteen.html

Genuinely "sick" of kids who ask for pork-alternatives, or just making a mountain out of a molehill in order to foment needless conflict?

lovedust wrote:
Genuinely "sick" of kids who ask for pork-alternatives, or just making a mountain out of a molehill in order to foment needless conflict?

I'm thinking the latter; surely alternatives have been offered in France for a very long time now ...

What did they do when RCs had to eat fish on Fridays?

I'm wondering if people remember the Nazis acquired "respectability" for their massive hate campaigns by purporting to "speak the language" of the man on the street.

Very cynical.

Well it's certainly along the same lines Lovey.

Sassy wrote:What did they do when RCs had to eat fish on Fridays?

Birds Eye fish fingers.

  

Politicking designed to stir up ill-will against children. It's horrid.

It's like, look how butch and 'ard I am, I can make little children cry! Absolutely disgusting.

this is a very good step forward

the Muslim population of France is a minority and yet their religious diet is forced upon others

its not better than a white minority ruling a black majority

smelly_bandit wrote:this is  a very good step forward

the Muslim population of France is a minority and yet their religious diet is forced upon others

its not better than a white minority ruling a black majority  

How is providing an alternative to pork forcing a religious diet on anyone? And what about France's millions of Jewish citizens?

children would eat anything they wouldn't be offended they adjust .

Ben_Reilly wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:this is  a very good step forward

the Muslim population of France is a minority and yet their religious diet is forced upon others

its not better than a white minority ruling a black majority  

How is providing an alternative to pork forcing a religious diet on anyone? And what about France's millions of Jewish citizens?

Not sure about France, but halal is being forced on kids in British schools. I don't agree with making kids eat pork obviously, but surely there are many alternatives; fish etc, but Smelly's right, it's just wrong to force halal on non-Muslim kids. Personally I think they should teach kids about the reality behind the meat they're eating and encourage a healthy vegetarian alternative. Some chance though.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:this is  a very good step forward

the Muslim population of France is a minority and yet their religious diet is forced upon others

its not better than a white minority ruling a black majority  

How is providing an alternative to pork forcing a religious diet on anyone? And what about France's millions of Jewish citizens?

because i want pork not an alternative

I think it's right that they eat the food provided to everyone or bring a packed lunch, why should costs and workers be affected by the religious requirements of a minority..

How strange, so where people would not be forced to eat shit or even dogshit, they now expect Jews and Muslims to eat Pork and non halal meat, how absurd, what next do away with vegetarian, vegan etc as diets cost also?


Equality means equality to all, people should have a choice in what they eat, I have no issue with that even though there is no big real difference between religiously slaughtered meat and the stunning process, but again you cannot deny people their diets from their faith just because some people, the same people everyday are eating this meat without any complaint.

Its just meat like any other and if people again argue other methods, then all methods of killing animals would be wrong, because the animal has no say in the matter and you are denying the basic right to life. So I find it absurd when people crap on about halal, it is complete hypocrisy, as stunning an animal does hurt, if you do not believe me, open a walk socket and shove a screwdriver in the parts, as am sure you will understand then how it feels.

smelly_bandit wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

How is providing an alternative to pork forcing a religious diet on anyone? And what about France's millions of Jewish citizens?

because i want pork not an alternative

So you are back at primary School then, if you are demanding pork, when the story is linked to schools?

Well done, I guess in about 10 years, you might have finally gained some knowledge

Tesstacious wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

How is providing an alternative to pork forcing a religious diet on anyone? And what about France's millions of Jewish citizens?

Not sure about France, but halal is being forced on kids in British schools.  I don't agree with making kids eat pork obviously, but surely there are many alternatives; fish etc, but Smelly's right, it's just wrong to force halal on non-Muslim kids.  Personally I think they should teach kids about the reality behind the meat they're eating and encourage a healthy vegetarian alternative.  Some chance though.

Of course every child should have a choice but when they come to school without food and want dinner at school, thus they have a choice as do the parents do they not Tess?. Again I am all for more options to accommodate all, but seriously are kids as young as this really bothered at over how the animal was processed? A kid sees a burger, not the cow 
Nothing should be forced upon anyone, but I do not see millions of people marching across the country complaining about it, do you Tess?


As to your last point the best point teaching healthy vegetarian alternatives, which also cost money to cater for some children, but that point is best, because to argue over the methods, when the killing would be morally wrong, it once again shows the absurdity of the arguments on halal, unless you advocate the sanctity of all animals, which you are okay Tess, as I know you value all animals, but many of the others do not

Jews and Muslims can eat whatever they want so long as the pork alternative is offered to them and only then since they are the ones who want it

A minority's rights and demands should never overrule the desires of the majority

In pretty sure the left opposed this idea when it was whites ruling blacks in SA

but as usual Muslims can do no wrong

Anyway who cares the RW are making gains in France and that's a good thing

smelly_bandit wrote:Jews and Muslims can eat whatever they want so long as the pork alternative is offered to them and only then since they are the ones who want it

A minority's rights and demands should never overrule the desires of the majority

In pretty sure the left opposed this idea when it was whites ruling blacks in SA

but as usual Muslims can do no wrong

Anyway who cares the RW are making gains in France and that's a good thing

the minority should not be able to demand anything yet it seems they constantly do..

smelly_bandit wrote:Jews and Muslims can eat whatever they want so long as the pork alternative is offered to them and only then since they are the ones who want it

A minority's rights and demands should never overrule the desires of the majority

In pretty sure the left opposed this idea when it was whites ruling blacks in SA

but as usual Muslims can do no wrong

Anyway who cares the RW are making gains in France and that's a good thing

No all should have equality and all should have options and alternatives, thus all are catered for, it is as simple as that.
Equality means all have access and choice to the food, but even then a child may want pasta, and today its stew for example you cannot make every kid happy but again I do not think many kids give this much of a second thought

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:Jews and Muslims can eat whatever they want so long as the pork alternative is offered to them and only then since they are the ones who want it

A minority's rights and demands should never overrule the desires of the majority

In pretty sure the left opposed this idea when it was whites ruling blacks in SA

but as usual Muslims can do no wrong

Anyway who cares the RW are making gains in France and that's a good thing

No all should have equality and all should have options and alternatives, thus all are catered for, it is as simple as that.
Equality means all have access and choice to the food, but even then a child may want pasta, and today its stew for example you cannot make every kid happy but again I do not think many kids give this much of a second thought

that could never work you would end up with and endless list of wants, the cost in time and money would be immense..

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Didge wrote:


No all should have equality and all should have options and alternatives, thus all are catered for, it is as simple as that.
Equality means all have access and choice to the food, but even then a child may want pasta, and today its stew for example you cannot make every kid happy but again I do not think many kids give this much of a second thought

that could never work you would end up with and endless list of wants, the cost in time and money would be immense..

Of course it works, people have choices for vegetarian or religious slaughtered meat, options for them as they are limited to what both can eat and it is already being done in many schools.


Anyway again I do not see countless children up in arms over how the food is slaughtered, because again they just see a piece of meat, not picture a cow again or how they are killed . Which makes the arguments against Halal and Kosher as absurd, people are being pedantic over the fact both methods kill the animal to be eaten and both methods are very quick, yet people bemoan how humane the method is, even though the animal is going to end up on someones plate, which makes the whole view point of the argument moot, because both methods deny life, the best and humane option for the animal.
Seriously we eat meat daily and how many spend a second thought over how it has been killed?
Not many and would be a rare occurrence for these views to cross your mind, showing how more than anything the arguments against religious slaughtered food are formed by the most prejudiced views, not from a  genuine concern for the animal

Ben_Reilly wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:this is  a very good step forward

the Muslim population of France is a minority and yet their religious diet is forced upon others

its not better than a white minority ruling a black majority  

How is providing an alternative to pork forcing a religious diet on anyone? And what about France's millions of Jewish citizens?

Smelly has never been to France. Another prejudiced comment from him

If pork was the only thing left to eat would Jews and Muslims go hungry or would they eat it to survive.

If halal meat were the only thing left to eat , i would eat it to survive before anyone askd lol

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:I think it's right that they eat the food provided to everyone or bring a packed lunch, why should costs and workers be affected by the religious requirements of a minority..

Thats obviously the sensible answer isnt it

David wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

How is providing an alternative to pork forcing a religious diet on anyone? And what about France's millions of Jewish citizens?

Smelly has never been to France.  Another prejudiced comment from him

hmm i've been all over the world and do not know the size of the jewish community in each of the countries, you will find it is seldom mentioned as a point of particular interest..  

Nems wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:I think it's right that they eat the food provided to everyone or bring a packed lunch, why should costs and workers be affected by the religious requirements of a minority..

Thats obviously the sensible answer isnt it

Hi Nems

Can everyone afford pack lunges?


Thus it is not the fairest option, because then now those who have needs because of their choosing that if they are from a poorer background are now also discriminated on that also, because the view is they need to bring pack lunges now because we cannot arrange two suppliers of meat, when they are eligible for free School meals.


Again the point being missed here is children really concerned about how the meat they eat is killed, being that it has been butchered no matter what process to fill their stomachs?

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:Jews and Muslims can eat whatever they want so long as the pork alternative is offered to them and only then since they are the ones who want it

A minority's rights and demands should never overrule the desires of the majority

In pretty sure the left opposed this idea when it was whites ruling blacks in SA

but as usual Muslims can do no wrong

Anyway who cares the RW are making gains in France and that's a good thing

No all should have equality and all should have options and alternatives, thus all are catered for, it is as simple as that.
Equality means all have access and choice to the food, but even then a child may want pasta, and today its stew for example you cannot make every kid happy but again I do not think many kids give this much of a second thought

So on what used to be pork day, pork is no longer served to suit the demands of bigoted minorities

So where is the equality? Where are the pork eaters catered to??

David wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

How is providing an alternative to pork forcing a religious diet on anyone? And what about France's millions of Jewish citizens?

Smelly has never been to France.  Another prejudiced comment from him

  


I love the fact that I get so deep under your skin

Didge wrote:

Nems wrote:

Thats obviously the sensible answer isnt it

Hi Nems

Can everyone afford pack lunges?


Thus it is not the fairest option, because then now those who have needs because of their choosing that if they are from a poorer background are now also discriminated on that also, because the view is they need to bring pack lunges now because we cannot arrange two suppliers of meat, when they are eligible for free School meals.

Didge I disagree, we are galloping back towards over full class rooms, facilities being taken away and schools fundraising to provide books. Two suppliers of meat and all the kerfuffle involved in cooking and storing and serving it separately  is not doable. Also are you not the one that says parents should provide for their kids and not the state?

Again the point being missed here is children really concerned about how the meat they eat is killed, being that it has been butchered no matter what process to fill their stomachs?

They are concerned if they are indoctrinated to be concerned

EDIT sorry! Hi Didge xxxx

What's a packed lunge??

Didge wrote:

Nems wrote:

Thats obviously the sensible answer isnt it

Again the point being missed here is children really concerned about how the meat they eat is killed, being that it has been butchered no matter what process to fill their stomachs?

It's not that they don't care, it's that they don't KNOW!!! Show them the reality and I think they'd start caring.

Tesstacious wrote:

Didge wrote:

Again the point being missed here is children really concerned about how the meat they eat is killed, being that it has been butchered no matter what process to fill their stomachs?

It's not that they don't care, it's that they don't KNOW!!! Show them the reality and I think they'd start caring.

Tess, again how many kids care about non-religious slaughter of meat?
Thus again is my point and why people are clearly making this more about the religion to try and enforce inequality, based upon prejudice

Nems wrote:

Didge wrote:

Hi Nems

Can everyone afford pack lunges?


Thus it is not the fairest option, because then now those who have needs because of their choosing that if they are from a poorer background are now also discriminated on that also, because the view is they need to bring pack lunges now because we cannot arrange two suppliers of meat, when they are eligible for free School meals.

Didge I disagree, we are galloping back towards over full class rooms, facilities being taken away and schools fundraising to provide books. Two suppliers of meat and all the kerfuffle involved in cooking and storing and serving it separately  is not doable. Also are you not the one that says parents should provide for their kids and not the state?

Again the point being missed here is children really concerned about how the meat they eat is killed, being that it has been butchered no matter what process to fill their stomachs?

They are concerned if they are indoctrinated to be concerned

EDIT sorry! Hi Didge xxxx

Nems, if we make that view, then same will be the case for vegetarians, vegans etc, because they also require a special diet, thus cost is already involved to help supply these choices.
Maybe a poor point on two suppliers, but again children should have the choice and the fact is as stated, the animals are processed for one simple reason, so the kids can eat, I doubt again whether they care how it is killed, except those that require religious slaughter


xx

Didge wrote:

Nems wrote:

They are concerned if they are indoctrinated to be concerned

EDIT sorry! Hi Didge xxxx

Nems, if we make that view, then same will be the case for vegetarians, vegans etc, because they also require a special diet, thus cost is already involved to help supply these choices.
Maybe a poor point on two suppliers, but again children should have the choice and the fact is as stated, the animals are processed for one simple reason, so the kids can eat, I doubt again whether they care how it is killed, except those that require religious slaughter


xx

Blimey Didge, when I was a kid you ate what you were given and that was that!

Nems wrote:

Didge wrote:



Nems, if we make that view, then same will be the case for vegetarians, vegans etc, because they also require a special diet, thus cost is already involved to help supply these choices.
Maybe a poor point on two suppliers, but again children should have the choice and the fact is as stated, the animals are processed for one simple reason, so the kids can eat, I doubt again whether they care how it is killed, except those that require religious slaughter


xx

Blimey Didge, when I was a kid you ate what you were given and that was that!

When I was a kid, there was many things I did not have, times change, as we have seen with equal equality started to be given to groups

Didge wrote:

Nems wrote:

Blimey Didge, when I was a kid you ate what you were given and that was that!

When I was a kid, there was many things I did not have, times change, as we have seen with equal equality started to be given to groups

That is fine and very laudable,but not when it is at the expense of the majority.
If I was in a Muslim country I would not expect to get served a sausage roll and a pint of lager.
If my children went to school in a Muslim country I would expect them to eat what they were given or I would provide an alternative. Can you honestly see them wringing their hands worrying that Halal might not be acceptable to me?!

Nems wrote:

Didge wrote:



When I was a kid, there was many things I did not have, times change, as we have seen with equal equality started to be given to groups

That is fine and very laudable,but not when it is at the expense of the majority.
If I was in a Muslim country I would not expect to get served a sausage roll and a pint of lager.
If my children went to school in a Muslim country I would expect them to eat what they were given or I would provide an alternative. Can you honestly see them wringing their hands worrying that Halal might not be acceptable to me?!

This is not a Muslim country, so that has no relevance to the debate, you cannot play off how other Muslim Governments enact their laws, compared to Britain or make Muslims who live here culpable for the laws in other Muslim countries Nems.
Again the whole point has been missed, non-Muslims and non-Jews can in the main eat halal/kosher meat if they so wish, Jews and Muslims can only eat religiously slaughtered meat. The only then reason not to eat some halal or kosher is made off how the animal is killed, whilst claiming a humane method be done, even though its purpose is to be killed and eaten. Can you not see how absurd that view really is when even worse the method to kill is exactly the same, the throat cut, one though electrocutes them first. Neither are nice methods to kill, but quick and o be pedantic over stunning and non stunning when we kill the animal in the first place is clearly a ruse, because the real reasons are prejudice views against Jews and Muslims and that we should go backwards and not have equality and deny Muslim and Jewish children meat that is not religiously slaughtered. Even again you will never ban the selling of said meat either, so again the arguments around this are silly and it is parents at odds not the children, but the child's choice everyone of them should matter on what they can eat. If that means more cost, then it means more cost for those on free school dinners, the rest can make pack lunches.

Didge wrote:

Nems wrote:

That is fine and very laudable,but not when it is at the expense of the majority.
If I was in a Muslim country I would not expect to get served a sausage roll and a pint of lager.
If my children went to school in a Muslim country I would expect them to eat what they were given or I would provide an alternative. Can you honestly see them wringing their hands worrying that Halal might not be acceptable to me?!

This is not a Muslim country, so that has no relevance to the debate, you cannot play off how other Muslim Governments enact their laws, compared to Britain or make Muslims who live here culpable for the laws in other Muslim countries Nems.
Again the whole point has been missed, non-Muslims and non-Jews can in the main eat halal/kosher meat if they so wish, Jews and Muslims can only eat religiously slaughtered meat. The only then reason not to eat some halal or kosher is made off how the animal is killed, whilst claiming a humane method be done, even though its purpose is to be killed and eaten. Can you not see how absurd that view really is when even worse the method to kill is exactly the same, the throat cut, one though electrocutes them first. Neither are nice methods to kill, but quick and o be pedantic over stunning and non stunning when we kill the animal in the first place is clearly a ruse, because the real reasons are prejudice views against Jews and Muslims and that we should go backwards and not have equality and deny Muslim and Jewish children meat that is not religiously slaughtered. Even again you will never ban the selling of said meat either, so again the arguments around this are silly and it is parents at odds not the children, but the child's choice everyone of them should matter on what they can eat. If that means more cost, then it means more cost for those on free school dinners, the rest can make pack lunches.

The UK is a Christian country the Queen is the head of the church of England. We like ham sandwiches, pork chops, crackling and pork pies we like ham on our pizzas etc etc etc. Why should these things not be available because they are against the religion of a minority?
If the kill method is so absurd why is it an issue for Jews and Muslims then.?

Im not playing anything off against anything Dige that is unfair, the point I made about a Muslim country is a valid one. I would not go to their country and demand they alter their ways for me, they have no right to demand we do. If the school lunch is not acceptable, provide an alternative. If that is not possible go to a country where the menu suits.

Nems wrote:

Didge wrote:


This is not a Muslim country, so that has no relevance to the debate, you cannot play off how other Muslim Governments enact their laws, compared to Britain or make Muslims who live here culpable for the laws in other Muslim countries Nems.
Again the whole point has been missed, non-Muslims and non-Jews can in the main eat halal/kosher meat if they so wish, Jews and Muslims can only eat religiously slaughtered meat. The only then reason not to eat some halal or kosher is made off how the animal is killed, whilst claiming a humane method be done, even though its purpose is to be killed and eaten. Can you not see how absurd that view really is when even worse the method to kill is exactly the same, the throat cut, one though electrocutes them first. Neither are nice methods to kill, but quick and o be pedantic over stunning and non stunning when we kill the animal in the first place is clearly a ruse, because the real reasons are prejudice views against Jews and Muslims and that we should go backwards and not have equality and deny Muslim and Jewish children meat that is not religiously slaughtered. Even again you will never ban the selling of said meat either, so again the arguments around this are silly and it is parents at odds not the children, but the child's choice everyone of them should matter on what they can eat. If that means more cost, then it means more cost for those on free school dinners, the rest can make pack lunches.

The UK is a Christian country the Queen is the head of the church of England. We like ham sandwiches, pork chops, crackling and pork pies we like ham on our pizzas etc etc etc. Why should these things not be available because they are against the religion of a minority?
If the kill method is so absurd why is it an issue for Jews and Muslims then.?

Im not playing anything off against anything Dige that is unfair, the point I made about a Muslim country is a valid one. I would not go to their country and demand they alter their ways for me, they have no right to demand we do. If the school lunch is not acceptable, provide an alternative. If that is not possible go to a country where the menu suits.

Christian in the loosest term, when 5% are church goers, again being a Christian nation and the teachings of Jesus also would mean to accommodate, not instead deny choice, because that means they are discriminated against for being a Jew and a Muslim. So what relevance does it mean to be a Christian nation in regards to equality for all on this? Nothing
Again I am for all choices, not anything being denied, this is what I said and hence it will cost more.
Again about a Muslim country is invalid, because not only is each Muslim country different with its laws, but not all Muslims come from a Muslim ethnic background, there are now also thousands of Muslim converts.
It is nothing about demanding either, why is it wrong to accommodate food Nems, where religions have this requirement? This is providing as you would for a vegetarian or Vegan, thus they certainly have a right to be treated equal, and having equal options on food is fair. So again the point on Muslim countries is making all Muslims here culpable for the laws of Muslim countries. You are also basically saying one religious group is okay because the nation is Christian, so migrants from Christian countries are welcome, but we should not provide equal rights to food here to other faiths, because they are not Christian.
I thought the Christian thing to do would be to help make this work for all.


Again though you miss the point on the food itself, being as this is the argument used on how humane the practice is being a smoke screen. Religious beliefs as long as they do not supersede our discrimination or criminal laws should thus not be an issue. I think you will find also that Muslim countries do very well accommodate for westerners with western food and alcohol within areas for Westerners.

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:Jews and Muslims can eat whatever they want so long as the pork alternative is offered to them and only then since they are the ones who want it

A minority's rights and demands should never overrule the desires of the majority

In pretty sure the left opposed this idea when it was whites ruling blacks in SA

but as usual Muslims can do no wrong

Anyway who cares the RW are making gains in France and that's a good thing

the minority should not be able to demand anything yet it seems they constantly do..

Are you against vegetarian options at schools? Vegetarians are a dietary minority?

Nems wrote:

Didge wrote:


This is not a Muslim country, so that has no relevance to the debate, you cannot play off how other Muslim Governments enact their laws, compared to Britain or make Muslims who live here culpable for the laws in other Muslim countries Nems.
Again the whole point has been missed, non-Muslims and non-Jews can in the main eat halal/kosher meat if they so wish, Jews and Muslims can only eat religiously slaughtered meat. The only then reason not to eat some halal or kosher is made off how the animal is killed, whilst claiming a humane method be done, even though its purpose is to be killed and eaten. Can you not see how absurd that view really is when even worse the method to kill is exactly the same, the throat cut, one though electrocutes them first. Neither are nice methods to kill, but quick and o be pedantic over stunning and non stunning when we kill the animal in the first place is clearly a ruse, because the real reasons are prejudice views against Jews and Muslims and that we should go backwards and not have equality and deny Muslim and Jewish children meat that is not religiously slaughtered. Even again you will never ban the selling of said meat either, so again the arguments around this are silly and it is parents at odds not the children, but the child's choice everyone of them should matter on what they can eat. If that means more cost, then it means more cost for those on free school dinners, the rest can make pack lunches.

The UK is a Christian country the Queen is the head of the church of England. We like ham sandwiches, pork chops, crackling and pork pies we like ham on our pizzas etc etc etc. Why should these things not be available because they are against the religion of a minority?
If the kill method is so absurd why is it an issue for Jews and Muslims then.?

Im not playing anything off against anything Dige that is unfair, the point I made about a Muslim country is a valid one. I would not go to their country and demand they alter their ways for me, they have no right to demand we do. If the school lunch is not acceptable, provide an alternative. If that is not possible go to a country where the menu suits.

spot on nems well said

lovedust wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

the minority should not be able to demand anything yet it seems they constantly do..

Are you against vegetarian options at schools? Vegetarians are a dietary minority?

HI Lovedust


Agreed, nobody has said this is to stop and yet will accommodate vegetarians, as they should, but if religious, then such arguments are formed from prejudice, because again we should accommodate equally all with food in schools

Didge wrote:

Nems wrote:

The UK is a Christian country the Queen is the head of the church of England. We like ham sandwiches, pork chops, crackling and pork pies we like ham on our pizzas etc etc etc. Why should these things not be available because they are against the religion of a minority?
If the kill method is so absurd why is it an issue for Jews and Muslims then.?

Im not playing anything off against anything Dige that is unfair, the point I made about a Muslim country is a valid one. I would not go to their country and demand they alter their ways for me, they have no right to demand we do. If the school lunch is not acceptable, provide an alternative. If that is not possible go to a country where the menu suits.

Christian in the loosest term, when 5% are church goers, again being a Christian nation and the teachings of Jesus also would mean to accommodate, not instead deny choice, because that means they are discriminated against for being a Jew and a Muslim. So what relevance does it mean to be a Christian nation in regards to equality for all on this? Nothing
Again I am for all choices, not anything being denied, this is what I said and hence it will cost more.
Again about a Muslim country is invalid, because not only is each Muslim country different with its laws, but not all Muslims come from a Muslim ethnic background, there are now also thousands of Muslim converts.
It is nothing about demanding either, why is it wrong to accommodate food Nems, where religions have this requirement? This is providing as you would for a vegetarian or Vegan, thus they certainly have a right to be treated equal, and having equal options on food is fair. So again the point on Muslim countries is making all Muslims here culpable for the laws of Muslim countries. You are also basically saying one religious group is okay because the nation is Christian, so migrants from Christian countries are welcome, but we should not provide equal rights to food here to other faiths, because they are not Christian.
I thought the Christian thing to do would be to help make this work for all.


Again though you miss the point on the food itself, being as this is the argument used on how humane the practice is being a smoke screen. Religious beliefs as long as they do not supersede our discrimination or criminal laws should thus not be an issue. I think you will find also that Muslim countries do very well accommodate for westerners with western food and alcohol within areas for Westerners.

I dont care how many people do or dont go to church this is is a Christian country. You cant  include vegetarian in this I dont think a vegetarian is going to be offended at his cheese being in the same fridge as a bit of ham.

Can you show where schools and hospitals and prisons etc in Muslim countries provide alternative menus for non Muslims?

Nems wrote:

Didge wrote:


Christian in the loosest term, when 5% are church goers, again being a Christian nation and the teachings of Jesus also would mean to accommodate, not instead deny choice, because that means they are discriminated against for being a Jew and a Muslim. So what relevance does it mean to be a Christian nation in regards to equality for all on this? Nothing
Again I am for all choices, not anything being denied, this is what I said and hence it will cost more.
Again about a Muslim country is invalid, because not only is each Muslim country different with its laws, but not all Muslims come from a Muslim ethnic background, there are now also thousands of Muslim converts.
It is nothing about demanding either, why is it wrong to accommodate food Nems, where religions have this requirement? This is providing as you would for a vegetarian or Vegan, thus they certainly have a right to be treated equal, and having equal options on food is fair. So again the point on Muslim countries is making all Muslims here culpable for the laws of Muslim countries. You are also basically saying one religious group is okay because the nation is Christian, so migrants from Christian countries are welcome, but we should not provide equal rights to food here to other faiths, because they are not Christian.
I thought the Christian thing to do would be to help make this work for all.


Again though you miss the point on the food itself, being as this is the argument used on how humane the practice is being a smoke screen. Religious beliefs as long as they do not supersede our discrimination or criminal laws should thus not be an issue. I think you will find also that Muslim countries do very well accommodate for westerners with western food and alcohol within areas for Westerners.

I dont care how many people do or dont go to church this is is a Christian country. You cant  include vegetarian in this I dont think a vegetarian is going to be offended at his cheese being in the same fridge as a bit of ham.

Can you show where schools and hospitals and prisons etc in Muslim countries provide alternative menus for non Muslims?

It maybe a Christian country and yet I am atheist, does that mean I have to abide by Christian laws?
Of course not, thus your view on this being a Christian country has no relevance, because again you are making minorities unequal in your eyes, based on this nation again only having a majority of people just say they are Christian in name only.



Saudi for example:




Most employers provide private healthcare as part of an employment package.
 

Again not that has any relevance Nems, because again you cannot base something off how many different Muslim countries differ on their laws and make Muslims here culpable for it, thus we are Britain and Britain is not intolerant and proud to say so

lovedust wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

the minority should not be able to demand anything yet it seems they constantly do..

Are you against vegetarian options at schools? Vegetarians are a dietary minority?

And the children who are diabetic, or celiac, or allergic to nuts (which can kill). In this case, they just don't want to eat pork. What about the kids that won't eat their greens, are they going to be force fed? This is just a way of trying to frighten children. It's disgusting and simply a smoke screen.

Didge wrote:Again not that has any relevance Nems, because again you cannot base something off how many different Muslim countries differ on their laws and make Muslims here culpable for it, thus we are Britain and Britain is not intolerant and proud to say so

No relevance exactly the American school of doo dah or the British school of wotsit is not the local school where the local kids go, I bet you they dont do alternatives for non Muslims