Please share your views on Maya Earls report (below) published on Jan 17, 2020 by Impact2020.
The Trump administration has announced plans to cut back school lunch nutrition standards led by former first lady Michelle Obama.
The proposed rule announced Friday would increase “flexibility” for vegetable requirements and allow schools to change fruit servings during breakfast in favor of meats or meat alternatives, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The USDA said the rules are “intended to help state and local program operators overcome challenges and deliver great meals more efficiently.”
The proposal takes a hit at one of Obama’s key achievements under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act as she celebrated her birthday Friday. The law, signed in 2010, set a minimum for fruit, vegetables and whole grain servings and set a maximum for sodium, sugar and fat content among other requirements.
Some schools faced challenges under the new requirements as the cost of lunches increased. One school district in North Carolina saw school lunches increase 55 cents between 2015-2018. Before the 2016-2017 school year, the district hadn’t raised prices since 2010.
Still, the program saw success. One study of 1,030 students by Harvard School of Public Health researchers found the amount of fruits students picked increased by 23%, and the amount of vegetables eaten per student increased 16%.
“I’ve got 14 grandchildren, and there is no way that I would propose something if I didn’t think it was good, healthful, and the right thing to do,” U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said.
The new regulations will be open for public comment for 60 days online at www.Regulations.gov.
A bit of history to give us a perspective of this particular practice of humanism in America. School lunches in America was not initiated by Michelle Obama. The program to feed poor children was started in 1853 by The Children Aid Society founded by Christian minister, Charles Loring Brace. Michelle Obama is a Christian and practices the faith.
The Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (79 P.L. 396, 60 Stat. 230) is a 1946 United States federal law that created the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) to provide low-cost or free school lunch meals to qualified students through subsidies to schools. (Wikipedia)
A bit of history to give us a perspective of this particular practice of humanism in America.
There aren't historical forces of humanism and religion that have somehow competed. Many Christians have seen the humanist teachings in the scriptures. Erasmus wrote his Bible translation with that in mind. Protestantism grew out of those earlier thinkers. All of that in opposition to the harsh rules of the Catholics. Just like Trump now says he loves the Bible, if you wanted to do something like start an Aid Society, you had to play along with the people in power. This was not done cynically for most of them, they were indoctrinated just like people are now. They believed "good" was supported by supernatural forces. As you know Sree, there are thousands of ways to practice faith.
Sree quoted: "The Trump administration has announced plans to cut back school lunch nutrition standards led by former first lady Michelle Obama", and then proceeded to declare "School lunches in America was not initiated by Michelle Obama".
Where in your quote does it say Michelle Obama "initiated" school lunches? It says she led effort to increase nutrition standards of school lunches.
This is a prejudicial reading of Michelle Obama’s efforts to secure a “healthy standard of nutrition in schools”.
And rather than commenting on the sheer callousness of Trump as an “example of inhumane behavior”, you pick on Michelle Obama’s effort to improve school lunch nutrition. That is a typical Trumpian tactic.
C’mon Sree, take off the sunglasses and see things as they are in full light of day.
Write4U, it is unfortunate that you read political innuendos in my post which was meant to give a historical context of school lunches for children in America. It was the article by Maya Earls that caught my attention. She portrayed the proposed rule change by the US Agricultural Secretary as a “callous” Trump initiative to mess up a “key achievement” of the former First Lady.
My intention was to start a discussion on humanism and examine critically our respective beliefs in this matter. My contention is that school lunches, as a humanitarian response, was a Christian inspiration. It was started by a Christian (Charles Brace) and improved on by another Christian (Michelle Obama).
With regard to the proposed change of rule on school lunches, we need to review the reasons for the proposal before we condemn it as “callous” and blame it on Trump.
Lausten: There aren’t historical forces of humanism and religion that have somehow competed.
I made an error in #319310 and used the word "humanism" instead of "humanitarianism". My intent in starting this discussion is to question humanism as a viable ideology in the solving of human problems.
Write4U: Okay Sree, so do you condemn that cutback? Or is it a petty act of a petty tyrant?
You asking me? I don't eat those lunches. By law, children in school are permitted to decline lunch items they do not intend to eat. According to USDA, high school kids are permitted to decline as many as two of the five items in a food-based lunch; younger children may decline one. How much of the Michelle-sanctioned food do you think kids throw away? Mriana should know based on her experienced with her own kids. Even babies know to keep their mouths shut and turn away when moms try to shove Michelle-sanctioned food down their throats. President H.W Bush banned broccoli on Air Force One.
No one knows why the USDA wants to relax the regulation imposed by Michelle Obama. Perhaps, it is too much pointless government control. Perhaps we should encourage school kids to exercise freedom of choice and feed them the Trump way: allow them to pick from any of the fast food kiosks set up in schools by MacDonald’s, Wendy’s, Taco Bell, KFC, etc…
My kids rarely got McDonalds (if they were out with their friends, they might have). I don’t think they ever had Wendy’s or KFC. The thing is, at home, which was often, they had home cook meals most of the time and that was always vegetarian. They ate my food more than they did their school lunches. Because of how I fed them at home, I didn’t want the school trying to force them to eat meat if they didn’t want to eat it. My older son, now 30, sometimes eats chicken and fish today, but he still eats a lot of veggies. My younger son, now 28, eats almost anything that doesn’t eat him first, but I don’t think he’s as healthy as my older son. I definitely wouldn’t want them picking food from a fast food kiosk if they were still kids even in high school. That stuff will kill even a kid. “Michelle-sanctioned food” is what they ate, minus the meat. It was heavy on the veggies and fruit, with some dairy, beans, rice, even tofu and meat alternatives. They ate it too, including the broccoli and spinach. It’s all in how they are raised from birth.
Sounds like you run a good home, Mriana. Without good homes - and only good women can run good homes - we don’t have good families; and without good families, we don’t have a good country. School lunches are meant for kids from dysfunctional families. Back in the old days, immigrants were pouring into the country. There were many non-viable families in New York City and kids were left homeless and they lived in the streets. The older ones formed gangs to protect themselves. (Have you read Oliver Twist?) They couldn’t all be fed and cared for by the Children Aid Society and had to be sent out west to pioneer families on the Orphan Train.
Why not? Humanism looks to science alone to replace religion as the basis for morality. Humanitarianism speaks to a moral code informed by religion long before the advent of humanism. I choose to make this distinction in order to identify the rationale behind humanist morality. Let humanist morality, if there be such a thing, be isolated from religious virtue so that we can look at it with clarity.
Is there any atheist you can point to? Anyone who has done or doing good to his fellowmen.
Is there any atheist you can point to? Anyone who has done or doing good to his fellowmen.
I don’t think there is anyone who sees himself or herself as a doer of evil.
A) what would matter is that you use terms as the rest of the world does
I try to, but “humanism” pertains to a belief that the Darwinian human is morally self-sufficient. It is necessary, therefore, to use the word “humanitarianism” to denote those efforts of religion in the promotion of human welfare long before the advent of humanism, as a secular movement, till the present day. School lunches was a humanitarian initiative of a Christian minister. Today, it is perceived as a federal law of a secular society. I cannot think of a secular country that is completely stripped of religious values.
Gates Foundation
What do you think it is? It is a tax shelter set up like Fort Knox to safeguard a phenomenal amount of money and protect it from you and me (i.e. the IRS). I am not into activism and not saying this out of protest. It is his money and he can do whatever he wants with it in the name of helping mankind. There are a ton of charitable organizations – secular and religious – in the country. Can you feel any good effect?
Lausten: Is there anything that any theist has ever done good to his fellow humans that couldn’t have been done without giving credit to their religion?
My grandma. She was a blessing in my life. She attended mass every morning. Never mentioned God or shoved a crucifix in my face. What about you? Any theist in your family you love?
You did not understand this question, or you are agreeing with me. It’s hard to tell with you.
Lausten: Is there anything that any theist has ever done good to his fellow humans that couldn’t have been done without giving credit to their religion?
If your grandma was good to you without shoving religion in your face, then she was being good without god. She was being good for goodness sake. Or maybe she believed that God was what made her good. It doesn't matter. She could have believed Krishna made her good and still turned out the same. Or she could have believed that humans thrived and survived by passing on good genes and good culture and still turned out the same.
Lausten: If your grandma was good to you without shoving religion in your face, then she was being good without god.
Ok, I give you that. She was not a Bible thumper. As a matter of fact, I never saw her with a Bible. She went regularly to church, made the sign of the cross, like Joe Biden, every so often when she was praying. She was exactly like Travolta's grandma in this video. She was a religious grandma. I wouldn't trade her for a secular grandma.
