Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
"Le Pen reignited debate on a sensitive issue about the substitution meals targeting mainly Muslim and Jewish pupils for whom pork is taboo."
In light of all that is going on in the world today and our current discussion on the issue of the separation of church and state in another thread here, I don't see how this can be considered to be a good thing. 
We always offered 'substitution' meals for our students for a variety of reasons - religious, dietary preference, health issues. We didn't "have" to do it, but it wasn't difficult and cost us no more in money or time to do so, and the gesture to reasonably support our diverse community was every bit as important (and often more so) as the act itself.
IMO a group with a history like Ms Le Pen's claiming it's "pork or nothing" as being "necessary to save secularism" is akin to a group like David Duke's claiming "separate but equal" doctrine as being necessary to saving states from an erosion of their constitutional authority.
Richard |
Very good point, not as much fun as a knee-jerk reaction though
, but a reasoned position. My POV is that when dealing with bullies (and I view Islamists as just that), capitulation and compromise never works no matter how reasonable and thoughtful the capitulation or compromise might be.
It's like the camel's nose parable (apt allegory in this case) or the give a mouse a cookie parable IMO.
Indeed this is a complicated issue.