I generally like to keep religion out of politics but sometimes I can’t help myself. I see that the House Republicans are now targeting food stamps as a way to make huge budget savings. What we’re talking about is food insecurity. We’re talking about hunger.

It makes me think about the parable of the Good Samaritan, so let me explain that a little bit. The story goes that a lawyer was questioning Jesus of Nazareth about the requirements for everlasting life. Jesus first asked what he believed to be the answer, and the lawyer replied, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.”

Jesus was satisfied with this answer, but the lawyer wanted to know, “Who is my neighbor?”

At the time, Jews and Samaritans did not have a good relationship, so Jesus gave the following example:

“A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain [Jewish] priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he travelled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the host, and said to him, ‘Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.’ Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?”

He said, “He who showed mercy on him.”

Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

The point being, obviously, that you don’t have to like or trust someone to show them basic human compassion. In the ethics of Jesus, it’s better to show mercy to your enemies than to simply be pious, especially if your devoutness allows you to walk by a person in need.

In the parable, the “certain man” made sure to leave some money for food, lodging and whatever medical needs might be required for the victim. He didn’t do the bare minimum, but saw what the situation required.  At no point did he inquire about the injured man’s work habits or job status, or his ability to repay.

This is the basic idea behind the food stamps program. There are people who don’t have enough money to feed themselves or their children. We feed them.

Naturally, we ask that people demonstrate an actual need. We want to save our food for the hungry, not for scammers who are trying the game the system. Here in Pennsylvania, you have to show your income under penalty of perjury. No one is in favor of fraud or waste. At the same time, we want to make sure we’re providing an adequate amount of food.

Anti-poverty experts have long described the money as critical, yet insufficient at times, in subsidizing families’ food needs over the course of a month. But Democrats’ efforts to expand SNAP aid have been met with steep and intensifying Republican opposition, as GOP lawmakers argue that food stamps and other government benefit programs cost too much and deter millions of Americans from entering the workforce.

Since winning control of the House, some GOP leaders have started to explore ways to translate their criticisms into federal policy. They have attacked the Biden administration for its recent benefit increases. They have called for limiting aid to entire categories of recipients, including poor adults without children. And they have raised the potential they could seek even tougher work requirements.

A pandemic-era boost in monthly food allotments expires in March, and we’ve all noticed how inflation has raised the cost of basic food staples. Food insecurity is a growing problem. The basic idea behind the Republicans’ proposed reforms is that people who receive food subsidies are disincentivized to work. They’re willing to tolerate giving a food handout to an adult who has children to feed since the child is not to blame and can’t go get a job. But they want to let adults without children go hungry so they’ll be forced to find work. They also want to make people prove they’re looking for work before they will feed them.

To be clear, these rules are already in place, it’s just that the Republicans want to make them more stringent.

In general, SNAP beneficiaries between ages 16 and 59 must register for work, participate in any required state-based training programs and take a job if offered, with exceptions for some categories of Americans, including those who are disabled and parents of kids under age 6. Federal law grants vast latitude to local officials to make training programs voluntary or mandatory.

SNAP beneficiaries who have no children and other dependents, meanwhile, may only collect aid for three months in a three-year period unless they obtain employment. But states may also waive some of these rules temporarily to enroll people in high-unemployment areas.

Republicans have faulted that approach as insufficient, seizing on, in particular, the waivers.

The conservative mindset is curious. They are far more worried that someone might be undeserving of their help than that someone might be starving. When someone says they’re hungry, they want them to prove it. When someone asks for food, they ask first if they’ve recently applied for a job. If the locals say that jobs are currently scarce, they don’t want to hear that excuse.

Now I get there’s a difference between giving a hungry man a sandwich and agreeing to bring him three sandwiches a day until the end of time. But the food stamp program already accounts for that. The problem right now is that sandwiches cost more than they used to and the people who we’re supposed to be helping aren’t getting enough. At the same time, unemployment rates are historically low, meaning that the need for waivers is also low.

Here’s how a typical Republican talks about this issue:

“I grew up very poor, I’ve seen the impact of just continually giving out food stamps without any requirement to ever get off them,” said Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), the leader of the Republican Study Committee, the largest bloc of House GOP lawmakers.

But, of course, there have always been requirements. So, Rep. Hern has not seen the impact he describes. What he has witnessed is people who used food stamps over a sustained period of time, and this annoys him. He thinks they should provide for themselves. If they were hungrier, maybe they’d get off their duff and go find honest work. But, remember, people “who have no children and other dependents…may only collect aid for three months in a three-year period unless they obtain employment.

We’re feeding children and dependents. Sometimes the head of their households are deadbeats happy to live off government assistance. We feed the people they’re supposed to care for anyway, and see no need to make a big production over it.

As I see it, Jesus asked us to take care of those in need without even asking if they are deserving or can pay us back later, but it makes sense to put some limits on governmental food handouts. The limits we have in place are designed to prevent genuine hunger and avoid disincentivizing work. Finding the right balance will always be a work in progress, but the bigger issue is making sure the help we provide is adequate, and right now it’s not.

I don’t look to Holy Scriptures to determine what kind of public policy I will support, but conservatives seem to never tire of promoting Christian values. In this case, the obvious Christian value is to not walk past the hungry on the assumption they’re undeserving.