Should someone on food stamps be allowed to buy soda? HHS might ban people on SNAP from buying soda. There is also a bill in TX that bans people on SNAP from buying soda, candy, cookies and chips. It seems obvious to me, but more importantly, what does the Bible say about it?
Hello, welcome to Politics by Faith. Thank you for being here. The last couple of days on the radio we talked about food stamps and soda. Three different things happening. In the federal level, there is a move by Health and Human Services to not allow people on SNAP, that's the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, to be able to buy soda. SNAP, by the way, if you go to the website, it says, SNAP provides food benefits, so it is not food, to low-income families to supplement their grocery budget. Real groceries, like food is what we're looking for here. So they can afford the nutritious food, so it is not nutritious, essential to health and well-being. So HHS is probably going to come out and say you can't use food stamps to buy soda. Apparently WIC, women, infant, and children, that type of food stamp you're already not allowed to do, but they're going to expand that restriction to SNAP. Now we talked to a Texas state representative about a Texas bill that expands that to, you can't buy soda, cookies, candy, or chips. So they're expanding it out to junk food. I would like to propose, and we have not done this yet, I'll do it on Monday show, I think, see how things go this weekend, but I'd like to expand that to all fast food. That's my nature, that's my instinct. But maybe that'll change based off this conversation here on this podcast, we'll see. Let's just start, let's just stick with junk food. We'll stick with junk food for now. To me, this is so obvious. And on the radio, I had trouble making a steel man for it. It's so obvious that you should not be able to spend my money on junk food when the premise of it is nutrition. So we took some calls. I called for people to only call in if you're against the ban. And there were a couple good arguments. No one changed my mind, but there's some good arguments and then after the show I went down I talked to my wife and so wife what do you think should people on food stamps be allowed to buy soda and She said yes now
My wife is as conservative as they come she's from small town East, Tennessee, right? It's in her bones. She will say things that are so conservative. I'm like you should do the show you should Do a segment or there's like the whole three hours. She's like, oh, I couldn't. I was like, no, you did better than me. So I was like, okay, so don't question her conservatism here in this point. So I said, why? Why should people on food stamps be able to buy soda with the food stamps? And by the way, they could still spend, it's not like if you're on welfare, you're not allowed to buy soda. You can just buy it with your own money. And it's not like you're not allowed to drink soda. Like if you go to a birthday party and you drink a soda you're getting Arrested like you could still drink it. Just can't buy it with the food stamp money I said why should people be allowed to and she said because they're people too And she felt bad for them not being able to buy soda And I said, but it's our money. She said it doesn't matter. They're people too and I made the joke on the radio that this is why women should not be allowed to vote. Now, listen, I'm not going to make that joke here.
Okay? I'm not going to make that joke. It's not appropriate. It's not an appropriate joke to make. So, we then got into a conversation on this chart. The chart here that Mike Lee sent out, Senator Mike Lee from Utah. And he said, how does one explain this? And it's a chart that has voters' opinions of, in a bunch of different groups of people, or people or groups. Donald Trump, J.D. Vance, Elon Musk, Doge, Republican Party, Zelensky, DEI, and the Democratic Party. Voters' opinions of. And it breaks it up into four different groups. White men with no college degree, white men with a college degree, white women with no college degree, and white women with a college degree. The difference between white men with no college degree and white women with a college degree is so enormous on every single one of these things. It's insane. These people are in totally different planets. A white man with no degree and a white woman with a college degree live on different planets. Their opinion of Donald Trump, white men with no degree plus 41. White women with a college degree, negative 38. I would love to see 10 white men with no degree and 10 white women with a college degree in the same room together. I don't know what happens there. How does that politically function? It can't, yet we all live in the same country. White women, excuse me, let's do DEI. White men with no degree, negative 40, view on DEI. White women with a college degree, plus 31. And it's like that with every single one of these. So what explains this? I've heard analyses like this before and I think this one is well-worded so let me share it here. The person says the answer to this is very simple.
Now let me just say if you heard me make this analysis on SiriusXM, I did like a like a bit with it. I made it like a bit more dramatic. Yeah I'm just gonna read it straight here. We're serious business here. No goofing off like we do on the radio. We're serious business. The answer to this is very simple. Women are a standard deviation higher in trait agreeableness and trait neuroticism than men. And the bit I did here was, Whoa, women, listen, you're upset because I called you neurotic. I didn't call you neurotic. I did, but I called you agreeable too, and you weren't happy about that now you're upset about being called neurotic let me explain it that was it but no more bits no more bit neuroticism is a personality trait that gives one the tendency to experience emotions such as anxiety worry fear anger frustration envy jealousy guilt and loneliness now it's for know about this is these are not insults these can be channeled for good and can be used, these can be tools that can be used properly or when used properly are good. People with high neuroticism can have a higher risk awareness, they can have higher self-awareness and a neuroticism has like a really bad connotation, you're neurotic, it's like, okay, well, this can actually be good. People higher in this characteristic can be more creative, they can have a higher drive for achievement and more relevant here though, they can have more compassion. Due to their heightened sensitivity to emotions, neurotic individuals may develop a strong capacity for understanding and caring for others.
This is biological, mostly immutable. Both of these traits, agreeableness and neuroticism, when channeled properly in the right direction, are very useful. Back to this person. He said their compassion like a woman's compassion and politeness directed towards their in-group kids family friends and their neuroticism Channeled into hyper vigilance into making this group happy and cooperative. This is a wonderful thing It's an amazing thing. It's a society building thing. It's a family building thing a society bill. It's essential and wonderful and God-given Here's here's what breaks down. College convinces women to redirect these traits away from their tribe, family, kids, and friends, into higher order, the higher order tribe of society. I would also argue that women today are not having kids or families at the age that they used to. Back in the day, you're a 26 year old woman, you have three kids by now. And today, you're a 26 year old woman and you just graduated college. And you have nowhere to channel that innate, God-given, biological impulse inside of you. So instead of channeling it to your kids, you don't have any, or your husband, you don't have one yet, like other women in the past would have at that age, you then channel it to Ukraine and all minorities everywhere with Black Lives Matter and Zelensky and DEI and your hatred of Trump because he hates whatever, Mexicans.
So you take this agreeableness and these other characteristics that women have a higher standard deviation of and you channel it in the wrong direction. This is why, I don't know if you saw this, but the other day Tommy Lahren, who's a very activist conservative, I think it was Danica Patrick, they were talking about how you shouldn't misgender trans people because it's mean. Okay, so it's like, well, right, but we gotta be nice, right, we gotta be nice, avoid conflict, and we gotta protect, right? These are wonderful things when focused in your group, right, we want everyone to be nice to each other in our group, we wanna avoid conflict in our group. We want to help each other in our groups. But it can be very easily hijacked. Those tendencies can be hijacked and turned into a very leftist political ideology. And when you send your young daughter into a pit of vipers that is our university system, that often is the end result. Does that make sense? I think that analysis, that secular cultural analysis, I believe is right. So when I ask should people on food stamps be able to buy soda, I say, no, of course not. But a college-educated woman will say yes, because there are people too. Now, the final joke I made on the radio is that this is why some people say women shouldn't be allowed to vote. And I say that's wrong. It's wrong, and it's way too far. Women should only be counted as 3 5ths of a person when it comes to voting. And it would be a compromise. We'll call it the 3 5ths compromise But again, that's not a funny joke. I'm not gonna make that here. We're very serious Now the question is and this is the point of this podcast What does the Bible say? Don't care what I think Don't care what white college-educated women think Okay, what their feelings are. I don't care what my instinct is. What does the Bible say? Let's first start with a curveball. Let me quote this from John Calvin. I have this little book here called A Guide to Christian Living. Chapter 6, actually this is section 6 of chapter called, chapter 2, Denying Self, the Key to Christian Living. We are not our own, we are the Lord's.
Okay, let me skip over to number six. Love to the unlovely. So that we do not grow weary in well-doing, as might otherwise happen at any time, we should also remember that what Paul goes on to say, love is patient and is not easily irritated. The Lord requires us to do good to all. He makes no exception, even though most people are unworthy if we judge them on their merits. Like, if I may, someone on food stamps. Scripture, however, forestalls us, warning us to pay no attention to human worth in itself, but rather to consider the image of God which is in all of us, and which deserves all our respect and affection, especially should we acknowledge it among God's servants in the faith, because it is being renewed and restored in them by the Spirit of Christ. If someone then turns up who needs our help, we have no reason to refuse our aid. What if we claim that he is a stranger? Well, we're reminded that the Lord has stamped him with a mark which should be familiar to us. We are thus urged not to despise our own flesh. Calvin then quotes Isaiah 58 7. It's a very interesting moment in Scripture. God's people are asking, why do our prayers go unanswered? Why are you not answering our prayers, God? And God exposes the shallow worship of His people. And verse 6 says, Is this not the fast that I have chosen? To loose the bonds of wickedness? To undo the heavy burdens? To let the oppressed go free in that you break every yoke? So you're saying, stop oppressing each other. What are you doing? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry? And that you bring to your house the poor who are cast out, when you see the naked, that you cover him and not hide yourself from your own flesh? Your own flesh here means your fellow man. Let me go back to John Calvin. What if we maintain that the man is worthless and beneath contempt? The Lord replies that he has honored him by causing his own image to shine within him. What if we say we owe him nothing? The Lord tells us that he has put him as a substitute in his own place. We are to think of him as the one for whose sake God has bestowed his blessings on us.
Whoa. We are to think of this person as the one for whose sake God has bestowed his blessings on us. Wow.
What if we think he is not worth lifting a finger for? We should hazard our lives and goods on account of God's image, which we are meant to see in him. Even supposing the man deserved nothing from us, that's no reason to stop loving Him or offering assistance and support. For if we argue that He deserves only ill of us, God might well ask what ill He Himself has done us, He to whom we owe every good thing. For when He commands us to forgive men their sins against us, God lays those sins to His own charge. John Calvin says this is the only way we can attain what is not only difficult for human nature but totally abhorrent to us. That is namely loving those who hate us, repaying good with evil, and praying for those who slander us. This I repeat we can attain if we are careful not to dwell on the evil which men do, but rather to look upon the image of God which they bear, and whose worth and dignity can and should move us to love them and to bury their faults, which might otherwise repel us."
Wow. So does that mean we should give soda to every poor person?
What I'm now, I'm gonna put it. Now, how do you, how can you maintain that and the sections of the Bible that talk about responsibility and personal responsibility? Interesting. Galatians 6, 2 and 5. Galatians 6, 2 says, Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. For if anyone thinks himself to be something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. I love that line. You think you're something? You're not. Stop thinking so much of yourself. Go and seek to carry the burdens of others. Now, this is very different. This does not say that people should expect others to carry their burdens. That's self-focus. It doesn't mean, I have a burden, you carry it. That's self-focus. But we instead should go seek to carry other people's burdens. That's other focus. That's the point. This is John 13. This is a new commandment I give to you that you love one another, as I've loved you, that you also love one another. By this, all will know that you are my disciples if you've loved for one another. So that's Galatians 6, 2. Go seek out other people's burdens. Galatians 6, 5 says, For each one shall bear his own load. Hold on. But we're carrying other people. Now we're own. There's no contradiction here. Bearing your own load means everyone will appear before the judgment seat of Christ. Romans 14.10 says, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we all will stand before God's judgment seat. So that is about your final accountability to God. Okay, great Slater, now I feel even more convicted. I guess we'll just let everyone eat junk food all the time. Here, take my money, buy some snicker bars with it. Hold on.
The Bible also speaks about responsibility. 2 Thessalonians 3 10 For even when we were with you, Paul says, we gave you this command, if anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busy bodies. For such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living. Plenty of Proverbs on this. Proverbs 10, 4 says, A slack hand causes poverty, but the hand of the diligent makes rich. Many, many scriptures and Proverbs in particular about working hard. I would also say it feels natural that if you, on a personal level, if you feel called to help someone, you give them money to pay for their rent, but then they go around and they spend it on junk food. Or let's say you give money for healthy food for their kids and they go and they spend it on candy. I think you would feel betrayed at that. We're also called to be wise stewards of our money. And giving is wonderful, but if you know that the money is not used for a noble purpose or a wise purpose, are you still called to give aimlessly? Are you still called to give something that will cause harm? What is the balance? Hopefully I shared some convicting things here as well, but what is the balance between giving and being a wise steward of your money to help someone else in a way that they can then help themselves? I'll end with this. Leviticus, there's a couple sections about reaping your field, right? You harvest your field, but you leave the edges alone so that the poor and the foreigner can gather for themselves. Now the idea though is they have to go gather. The Bible doesn't say, hey, harvest your entire field and then give 10% of it away to the poor and the foreigner. The Bible says, harvest everything except the edges. It's very generous to leave this for other people. Leave it for others. But then there's also a call from the other side of the equation to provide something for this arrangement as well. You have to also engage in the harvesting for your own good.
I feel like I didn't give as much of a convicting answer on this topic like maybe I do on other ones. Help me with it. Slaterradio at gmail.com is my personal email. Slaterradio at gmail.com. How do you think through this? And now having worked through some of these scriptures here, how would you answer this question? Should someone on food stamps be allowed to buy soda? Really curious your take now. Slaterradio at gmail.com. Also Slaterradio on Instagram and Twitter to give me your answer on this one. We'll talk more about it on Monday's SiriusXM show as well. Slater Radio on Twitter and Instagram. And we also post all this on my website MikeSlater.Locals.com and you can leave a comment down there as well. and you can leave a comment down there as well. MikeSlater.Locals.com
