Free school lunches

I actually agree with you on the libertarians. But I don't think you make a case for a specific level of socialism or specific government programs. Your scripture verses are clearly about the evils of oppressing the poor. In the scripture you had to let poor people harvest by hand the crops left behind and you were to leave the corners of your field uncut so they would have enough to gather (but they had to gather). It's a Christian virtue for you to help the poor and needy as you can - no question about that. But is it a Christian virtue to demand that others do such and such as you deem important to help the poor? Where is that in scripture?

It's not that programs are all wrong. I'm in favor of programs that we can do, that we can finance, and that show some effectiveness. All I ask is that we can pay for them, and that we study them to see how people are adjusting to the programs so that we don't do more harm than good, and most of all, that we don't frame every single program as some kind of righting of a perceived wrong and try to make it seem like the aid was really a "right" all along. This does nothing but cause animosity on the recipient and the one who pays, and it will eventually break the system.

Regarding lunches, I'm not against the program. Before the program I knew of quite a few teachers who were buying kids lunches simply because they could not eat in front of a kid with no lunch. And politically, many of those teachers were conservative.

 

That last paragraph is way off, if the first one is right on.

“Terrible school lunches” cannot rightly be a separate issue, if the goal is that students have “a healthy diet, [which] is essential to mental and physical growth.”

It is throwing good money after bad to pay more taxes to serve up food kids will avoid.

There will still be those who benefit from the money, such as the school system and the caterers, and whoever takes the bribes from the latter, but they tend to be the main problem.

 

Of course it is separate. One involves the intention (the principle of the matter) and the other involves the quality of the execution of those intentions.

Belief that minimum base-level of school lunches for everyone is an essential part of education is something that most, if not all, can agree upon. The fact that many school districts (although, certainly not all of them) fail to consistently deliver high-quality food in a palatable format according to the dietary and cultural needs of the students does not negate the fundamental principle. The implementation of school lunches often varies widely from school district to school district, even campus to campus, based on local leadership and their priorities.

If children are hungry enough, they will generally eat whatever you give them unless if makes them ill.

But that's no reason to allow local schools to do things poorly. That's where parents, the community, and school officials need to get involved. I have a friend who is a school dietician, and he knows how to manage a budget and make the best use of the funds to feed the students tasty and nutritious meals. When I was growing up, I don't think any of the three public schools (all in the same district in Southeast Texas) had a trained dietician, just a lead "lunch lady" who was part of the union who ordered supplies and made the menus. Four out of the five school days every week had exactly the same food -- Friday was always a fish patty with ketchup (lots of Roman Catholics in the region), and we had a hamburger day, hot dog day, and a Sloppy Joe day. On one day a week, they would throw in some sort of hamburger patties covered in gravy with mashed potatoes selection, or a spaghetti style dish (pasta, chopped up hamburger patties, and tomato sauce). Everything but the hot dog day and fish days were based on precooked hamburger patties that they bought in bulk in special heating sleeves, heated up in a pressure cooking system, and then opened the sleeves to process or serve directly. Even with that highly processed and uninspired arrangement, there were significant differences in quality between elementary, junior high, and high school offerings.

Now with more professionalization of the school dining experiences, there is an opportunity to do things right if taxpayers and school officials want to do it.

It's funny how you automatically assume that there are bribes involved, and you also don't seem to like the fact that legitimate profits might also be made.

A school district has to spend money to provide quality food. And that involves profit for people up and down the supply and labor chain. There's nothing wrong with that. It's basic capitalism working properly.

 

Go back and read them carefully. Not all are JUST about oppressing the poor. They are about how God judges nations regarding how they treat the poor. The Old and New Testament have MUCH more to say about the subject. We also have the example of Jesus. When He miraculously fed the crowds, did He sort out those who truly needed food from those who had plenty? We have no record of such a thing. God sends rain to the just and unjust, so I don't think we should get bent out of shape that someone has a benefit available to them that they don't "deserve."

That's one method of helping the poor (especially those who had lost their farming land), but don't make that one example the standard way to care for the poor. Another method of caring for the poor was to give to beggars who could not work normal jobs (lame and blind, for instance). Are you opposed to giving handouts?

You are quite right.

Here's a couple of things to think about:
(1) Helping the poor and needy is not just an arbitrary rule for Jews and Christians that is unrelated to the reality of human existence. Sometimes religious people get the idea that religious ideas only have relevance for religious reasons instead of having objective moral and social benefits. If the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob Who was incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth established moral and ethical guidance for helping the poor, and the widows and orphans, then we can easily assume that God's commands are for human flourishing in general. If we reflect on the benefits of aiding those in need, the wisdom of doing so should be plain.

(2) Disciples of Jesus are called to be advocates for the poor, the strangers, the powerless, and the marginalized. We are called to proclaim the goodness of God and His kingdom. One of the ways we do that is by influencing our society toward goodness, including kindness and ethical virtue. In the United States (the political entity where this question is based) is intended to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We do not "force" others to do things unless the government policy is changes according to the will of the people. Elections are the means to make changes in our representative democracy.

Sure, I agree. We can't just throw money at things and expect them to improve. We need to monitor and evaluate the best way forward.

I agree that it is the wrong way to phrase things. I believe a better way to put it would be to say that our society has a responsibility to ensure that the poor and vulnerable have what they need to get through each day and break the cycle of poverty. We don't wait around until "victims" emerge.

In my view, there shouldn't even be a cash register at the standard serving line at a public school. Everyone gets their portion to eat without having to prove any sort of hardship. Let everyone have equal standing in that serving line. If a cafeteria wants to have alternative or supplemental foods available, they can certain charge for those foods as luxury items.

And all of those teachers had a modicum of decency. Imagine how hard-hearted one would have to be to watch a child go hungry while you as an adult ate in front of them.

 

@Baptist Believer . Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your concern to help. But I would just caution you to be careful that you don't dismiss everyone else who may want to do something different than you with the limited recourses that are available. I'm not against school lunch programs but I also know from working over 40 years in healthcare that malnutrition is not a problem in America, unless you count childhood obesity. Kids also do not starve during the summer and during winter break. Kids need lunch, and breakfast, and coats in the winter, and immunizations, and braces and glasses and check-ups and screenings and school supplies and things to do after school and tutoring and computers and internet access so what about those? Well, we already have programs for every one of those things. Yet, without fail, any new idea, if anyone disagrees with it, they are considered unloving and subject to end time judgment. The fact is you should help where you can and where you see fit but there is no credit for advocating that others help more. That is their business.

Jesus fed a crowd a couple of times when they went out to see him and were without food. He never started a food program with the idea that it is a government responsibility to feed everyone, as a matter of course, all the time. He never insisted that anyone else do it either. I'll say it again. All the references you used are indeed about not oppressing the poor and about giving the poor an equal chance at justice before the law. There is absolutely no responsibility at the level of government, from the standpoint of it being part of God's work, for us to take money away from one group of people and redistribute it to another group. While it may be wise to do so to some extent simply because it won't work to have a huge wealth disparity exist and have people living peaceably in close proximity - there is no Christian virtue in wealth redistribution. Like I said, there may be reasons to do some of it as a member of a society and it may be the most wise thing to do but don't equate it with God's work.

I do think anyone will be rewarded who helps others. That is a Christian virtue. You will not be rewarded for demanding that others help as you see fit, by signing on to support such and such government program, whatever is fashionable that year.

 

For the record, due to the damage that has been done to the word, "libertarian", by the Mises Caucus after its takeover of the Libertarian Party last year, I no longer call myself a libertarian but, as many of the founders of the United States were, I am a classical liberal. And it is my opinion that Frank S. Meyer, were he still alive, would prefer the term classical liberal in 2023, as well.

 

Good idea.
In FLA, if a school has a high enough percent of the student population qualify for free/reduced lunches, that school offers free breakfast from a cart in the morning to ALL students. It improved a lot of things and the cost was fairly reasonable. Let’s level a playing field when the fruit is low hanging.

 

The reality is often far uglier … the oldest sibling is getting the younger sibling to school as the mom struggles in her personal crack-addiction hell. The Church food pantry will not fix a 12 year old raising an 8 year old and CPS will probably make the situation worse.

 

Yes. All students are encourages to apply in FLA (even if you clearly don’t qualify) because schools receive “brownie points” on whatever school grading system the State and Federal government use for % of students that “apply” (impacts other funding) and those students that DO QUALIFY earn the school funding to offset costs for other services [districts with high poverty typically require more “speech specialists”, for example].

 

I have not intended to make any such claim. The question was asked about tax-payer funded school lunches and I think it is a great idea. I think it is one of the ways that Christians should advocate for the poor, as well as simply a good idea for secular reasons, but I don't think that specific concerns about whether or not there should be a cash register on the standard serving line at a public school condemns anyone to Divine judgment.

"And let us take thought of how to spur one another on to love and good works..." - Hebrews 10:24

Paul taught that God established governments and we are to pay taxes:

"For this reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants devoted to governing." - Romans 13:6​

The government that Paul wrote about (the Roman Empire) practiced wealth redistribution through food distribution and government aid to the poor to help them farm. Remember the old critique of Roman emperors giving the people "bread and circuses?" The "bread" part of that was literally food. Paul characterized the Roman government as God's ministers, not because they were good and moral, but because it was fulfilling God's role for governments.

The Christian church has been characterized as taking up offerings for persons and people groups in need throughout history. The Old and New Testaments speak of giving all the time.

I am not equating it with "God's work." It is human work motivated by Christian teaching.

Demanding? No. Persuading? Yes. You seem to think that the only way to operate is by the raw use of power. Like everything else in the Christian life, we are called to persuade, not to use force.

 

I don't mind it either. My wife taught for years in a school where everyone eventually qualified for free lunches and we know how it is and how things work.

Agreed. Just be careful that you don't mix that up with government programs financed by involuntary contributions (taxes), with fellow believers doing good works. They are not the same thing.

Read the whole passage. Paul taught that the magistrate beareth not the sword in vain. The purpose of government is to punish evil and reward good behavior. If it does not do that it is not legitimate. Redistribution of wealth to level society is not a Biblical function of government. Besides, while Rome was benevolently doing this it was also raping and pillaging the whole known world. Please understand that I am not against many of these things that governments do to help people. What I am against is the idea that I see in Christians who tend to be liberal - the idea that someone who refuses their particular path and programs can be so easily judged. All I am saying is that there can be good arguments by Christians as righteous as you that happen to be against school lunch programs or many other programs for that matter.

Sorry. Government programs all demand. Government is force and while necessary in a fallen world Christians should always bear that in mind even when the proposed program looks good to us. Like I said, we are under obligation to give, way beyond what the rest of the world can conceive of, as Christians. But we are not under obligation nor will we receive reward for coercing others to give through taxes.

 

My argument still stands. Trying to treat the two as separate issues rather than directly related will not solve the problem.

I do agree that, if a kid is hungry enough, he will eat what he can get his hands on. But that actually is a different issue.

Automatically assuming my mention of bribery was an automatic assumption was wrong. But no, I’m not about to cite examples here.

But the point, taken in context, had nothing to do with being against legitimate profit-making. That’s a ridiculous leap in logic.