Part of the reason humanity collectively isn't seeing to the proper feeding of all human children and adults is because adults today were not properly fed as young children themselves. We must overcome the ignorance and shortsightedness of this vicious downward-spiral.
All other things being equal, proper feeding of the youngest children gives them the best start in the fleshly sense. Even if there are other stresses upon the children, proper nutrition certainly will remain a benefit for each child and humanity as a whole.
The reason to feed the children is not selfishness. The incentive should not be what we each will gain as individuals apart from the whole.
The proper approach is to feel the difficulties of others regardless of our situation and out of a deep and abiding sense of empathy and sympathy, desire to relieve the children and others of their difficulties in the immediate sense and on account of the positive consequences for them and everyone else concerned. Everyone else is literally everyone since there is no absolute disconnect. No matter how far separated, we are all at least indirectly connected to some extent in some context. God knows who the proverbial Satan is for instance.
Here is an article about how much difference some very basic nutrition for children two-and-under can have for the rest of the children's lives.
Better Childhood Nutrition Increases Productivity. Press Release from the International Food Policy Research Institute. January 31, 2008.
The article discusses the food "Atole." Here's a link to the Wikipedia article on Atole.
If we care for the children today, they will be that much smarter as adults. They will be that much better able to improve the general and specific conditions of individual humans and of the whole of humanity.
Once people are adults, somewhat contrary to the findings of the above linked article, nutrition continues to be important. Read the following linked article.
. International Labour Organization (ILO). September 15, 2005.
Now, those two articles are written from the economic standpoint. That's fine especially if one truly comprehends that economics is about managing the household that is the whole Earth and beyond. It isn't dollars and cents. It isn't private enterprise. It's everything. It all ties together.
That's why we have devised the Christian Commons Project™.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)