Here's a post I probably should have handed off to our own Just Mindy, as she's the most outspoken conservative Christian of us. Jared Shult here needs a conservative Christian to explain to him why they're against free lunches in schools. I got in trouble with Jonah Goldberg a long way back for misusing the logical fallacy "begging the question," so I'll make up for it now by using it correctly. Shult's post begs the question that conservative Christians are against free school lunches. I've never heard that they are. Is this some new movement I've missed?
Can a Conservative Christian explain to me why you are against free lunches in schools for kids?
— Jared Shult (@jared_shult) October 1, 2026
My faith is shaky at best, but I try to live my life as a Christian (plus, my mother worked as a school cook, so I have a background in the subject). I'm not opposed to free lunches for kids who can't afford them. I'm also not opposed to schools charging kids who can afford it for lunch. Gov. Tim Walz made a big deal, and a photo opportunity, out of his signing a law making school lunches free for every kid in the state. I'm opposed to that.
What gets me is not just schools handing out free lunches to every kid, but schools handing out free breakfast and lunch to every kid. What really gets me in my city is that the public school cafeterias stay open year-round so that kids can come and grab free breakfast and lunch while school is out for the summer. So, you're telling me that if the schools didn't do this, kids would go hungry? If you're a parent in the age of SNAP and you can't scrape together enough for a bowl of cereal and some milk in the summer to feed your own kid, I don't know what to tell you. I just don't see why schools should double as food banks. And I don't know what Christianity has to do with that.
Imagine thinking that anything is free? What are parents for again?
— andieiam (@andieiamwhoiam) October 1, 2026
Because training people to receive free handouts creates bad outcomes for them in the future.
— Joshua Tyler | Screenwashed (@screenwashedcom) October 1, 2026
Don't feed the bears.
Can you explain why you're incapable of long-term thinking?
Because my tax money is being used and it is not my responsibility to feed other people's kids. Try this, if you can't feed children, use birth control. It's simple.
— Jon Groteluschen (@j_groteluschen) October 1, 2026
There’s no such thing as a free lunch.
— CaptureEveryThought (@iowagolddsm) October 1, 2026
And if the taxpayers are paying the bills, yet have a limited say on what’s being taught and who is doing the teaching, AND seeing rock-bottom test scores for their hard-earned money, they get upset.
Subsidizing anything through socialist policy kills the price signal, producing lower-quality goods and fraud. Anyone who’s had public school lunches knows it’s processed junk and low-quality produce with little nutritional value. Better policy promotes agency.
— Maladyetz (@TovarischSmithe) October 1, 2026
It's not free. As a Conservative Christian I would ask you to stop lying.
— The Grateful Red (@gratefulred1) October 1, 2026
The correct question should be:
— Bailey (@RealXBailey) October 1, 2026
Do you believe that taxpayers should have to pay to feed other people's children?
I’m against public schools entirely.
— Ó Céilleachair 🇺🇸 (@ocelleachair) October 1, 2026
Any hungry kid is welcome at my house and will be fed.
I’m fine with it, if there’s a comparable reduction to any other federal tax dollars the parents are receiving.
— Peter Pilot🚁 (@guardpilot) October 1, 2026
Just look at MN the free lunch program is just another mandate tax that is already VASTLY over budget.
— BTCPleb (@Life_of_Pleb) October 1, 2026
The "free lunch" is costing everyone more money than it's supposed to.
Yeah my taxes might pay for their lunch, but also there are 30 other things the same tax pays for that I don't agree with.
— TLegendaryMilk (@TLegendaryMilk) October 1, 2026
I've done volunteer work for years to help donate and give lunches to kids when not in school. You don't need the government to provide food for kids.
This is a flawed premise because you are conflating two things into a single premise while having a pre-planned criticism of one thing when you’re really asking about the other.
— Call Shot (@CallShotX) October 1, 2026
Universal free lunch? Because there are programs for free lunches for those who meet income guidelines and I want the government to utilize resources elsewhere, rather than to feed kids whose parents are already providing for.
— Mildly Feral Mama (@mildlyferalmama) October 1, 2026
I’m not Christian, but I’m rather conservative.
— Annie 🇺🇸 (@AnnieInAlaska) October 1, 2026
I have no problem with free lunches for school kids— take that money from the unions, DEI administrators, and LGBTQ story time.
I like the concept, but we’re constantly expanding "free" programs to accommodate people who already draw heavily on welfare without contributing
— JHF (@jakefuss7) October 1, 2026
It feels like my wealth is being redistributed more and more to people who have 0 interest in paying into the system they're using
I don't think any Christian would want a child to go hungry. For me, government involvement is the problem. I would rather donate time, food, or money directly to the school, or to the families in need. That way we can avoid paying for a bureaucracy and just feed kids.
— lazyes3 (@lazyes36978) October 1, 2026
What a loaded question. Shult doesn't say if he's a liberal Christian or a Christian at all, so the subtle demonization of conservative Christians doesn't work. Ideally, parents in need should spend their SNAP benefits on bagged lunches.
If I remember correctly (it was four decades ago), we had a system where poor kids could get free lunches in exchange for working in the cafeteria, such as hosing down plates. I don't know of anywhere that does that now, as it would stigmatize the poor kids, and that would be unacceptable.
***
