Why is a Church “Adopting” This Public School?

A local church has “adopted” UbiDubiKid #2’s elementary school. But so far, it does not seem to be crossing the line of church-state separation. It’s a moderate Methodist Church, so they strike me as less likely to view this as evangelism and more as community service. I know they are providing tutors, and I think some help with school supplies. As long as they are doing this because “Helping students is a good thing to do” and not because “We can preach at them” then I am pretty much OK with this. But it should be watched carefully, since some churches will push those boundaries as far as they can get away with.

If I or Pepsico or Frito-Lay donated $5000 worth of supplies will the school facilitate visits for us as well? Foreign diplomats? Lobbyists? Imams and Mullahs? Drug kingpins?

A charitable donation does not buy inroads. If the goal or outcome of a charitable donation is marketing opportunities then it is not a charitable donation. The expectation of more than public thanks and recognition shows just how uncharitable these donations were.

Why is it not disgraceful that in any given community religious organizations fatten while education starves?

The first story is bad enough – the church is literally buying leads — they are hoping to get a return on their investment in the way of tithes.

The second story is completely ridiculous – imagine telling a homeless person that they can either live on the street and starve, or they can come stay in a nice warm shelter — as long as they pray to a Jewish zombie.

The whole episode reminds me – yet again – of Jesus’s condemnation of religious leaders who give to charity for ulterior motives. Amazing how those few lines are totally ignored by so many christians, or at least the ones that make it into the news, I’ve known people who take it seriously and hide their charitable actions and prayer, looking at the news you’d think that’s a minority of them.

It would be funny each time things like this happen to send these people and churches letters saying “congratulations, you have already received your reward.”

Something like this?
When his budget for pencils, paper, and other essential supplies was cut by a third this school year, the principal of Combee Elementary School worried children would suffer.
Then, a local mosque stepped in and “adopted” the school. The Combee Islamic Center stocked a resource room with $5,000 worth of supplies. It now caters spaghetti dinners at evening school events, buys sneakers for poor students, and sends in math and English tutors.
The principal is delighted. So are mosque leaders. “We have inroads into public schools that we had not had before,” says Imam Mohammad Abdullah . “By befriending the students, we have the opportunity to visit homes to talk to parents about Allah.”
While Combee gained resources, the mosque gained access to families. The school connected the mosque with parents who said they wouldn’t mind being visited at home by Islamic Center representatives. The mosque brought gifts, food and the Koran. Of about 30 families visited over two weekends, 13 “declared their faith in Allah,” says Mr. Abdullah, a 58-year-old who drives a black sports-utility vehicle with the bumper sticker “Praise Allah.”
Mr. Abdullah says adopting Combee goes far beyond providing resources like school supplies. “The purpose is to show them the mosque cares, and that there is hope, and hope is found in Allah.”
“If they want to come in and help, who am I to say no?” says Mr. Comparato, the principal.
He says he would welcome congregations of any faith as sponsors, but adds of his students, “My personal conviction is that I hope through this they’ll know Allah and they’ll get saved.”

Go, AU! This principal has some gall and as you said, they’re not even being subtle. It should be fairly open and shut.

Nevermind! I finally got around to reading the actual article and found it inside. Doh!

Angrymonkey, as an atheist parent I would be incensed. I would hope as a religious parent I would be incensed. It’s not “passive proselytizing” if they are openly stating the goal is to get families to be “saved”.

As for the second story, that is precisely why I refuse to give to religious-based charities. Don’t get me wrong; some organizations do a great deal of good. I just can more easily give to secular organizations and know that there won’t be strings attached to the services. the Salvation Army, for example, is exactly that- an “army” of people actively attempting to preach, requiring people to sit through church services in order to eat. This kind of bartering turns my stomach.

Sheesh, they sound like the Mafia! “You’ve got a friend in the family.” So horrible to hold schools and kids hostage like that.

My former church was doing this same thing (adopting an impoverished, low-performing local public school) 10 years ago.

They also funneled the kids into youth group, invited teachers and staff to church and donated money/supplies.

It’s a blatant evangelical outreach that they make no apology for, and as far as I know, they didn’t get any pushback from the community, either. Most people in that area are poor Hispanic and Asian immigrants, so they’re already religious or at least religion-tolerant.

Donating to a needy school would be an altruistic act if there were no ulterior motives. The church in this case is breathtakingly candid about why they’re doing what it’s doing. This is not altruism; it’s proselytizing.

Besides, religious altruism is fundamentally corrupted. If you give to someone who is in need because they are in need (because of your own conscience, your built-in sense of the golden rule, and your sense of human solidarity), THAT’S true altruism. No strings. But if you give to someone in need because you think it’s what God demands of you, then you’re just obeying orders (and avoiding punishment)–which is not altruism. Ditto if you’re doing the altruistic act in order to be better positioned to proselytize (which is incredibly demented and cynical when you think about it).

“Residents will be required to attend church, though it doesn’t have to be First Baptist”. No mention of synagogue or mosque there either. And if the school were to receive an analogous offer from a synagogue or mosque or a secular humanist organization, I have little doubt what their reaction would be.

If churches want to help so badly,let them PAY THEIR LOCAL TAXES!

In some small towns, I bet that having churches (often many for such small populations) pay local property tax would be enough to fund the short school budgets.

I don’t see why they are allowed all these exemptions- they usually own some of the prime land in every city, why shouldn’t they pay???

They LOVE seperation of church and state ONLY when it means they get to skirt on their public duties. After all, the roads parishoners use to attend their church is paid for by TAXES.

These principles should be fired. I would also like to see an atheist group try the same thing…

This is a another good example of encroachment of church or corporation – private entities – on the public infrastructure of the US. Here, the church is like a carrion-feeder on the carcass of the school left behind by the corporate and military forces running our country.

The lesson to be learned here is why this school is suffering financially in the first place, and thus so vulnerable to temptations like what this church is offering. WHY? Where is our public money going?

Where is our public money going?

Tax cuts and inflation. Or maybe the fact you spend more money on your military than anyone else in the world.

Marilyn wrote:

The second story is far more infuriating than the first. They’re literally telling homeless people to worship Jesus or sleep on the streets, and the government supports them.

I faced a very similar choice earlier in life in a period when I was homeless. I had a roof over my head at night thanks to the Salvation Army, who did not directly try to proselytize me, but people in the shelter were left to their own devices for food. One popular choice, because it was nearby, because they left flyers at the SA shelter, and because it was better than starvation, was some urban ministry that gave the homeless person a meal after they let them preach at them for some period of time.

I showed up at that ministry one day to see what was going on, but I guess I wasn’t hungry enough to submit to them. I barely scraped by for a few months by selling my blood plasma (and becoming very thin).

Before I found the SA shelter, I stayed one night at a house in San Diego, which turned out to be a racket for turning desperate people into street evangelists for some Christian sect.

This was in San Diego in 1992, and I shudder to think how common these practices have probably become in the woe-ridden US.

Oops, AU would be right to sue. Not ACLU.

Yeesh. This is probably one of the least contemptible things that a church will do this year. In the absence of adequate funding for a public school – they coughed up some money to see that kids needs are met… and that’s a bad thing?

Call your applicable government representative and demand higher taxes. Donate some money to your local schools. Demand an end to the war in Iraq. Be upset about all the things that have drained money away from schools. Then if you really have to, whinge about some of the other people who are donating to schools.

But as long as you’ve got free time and disposable income that you’re not willing to put towards helping kids – it’s pretty obnoxious to complain about people who are.

As a side note – I have plenty of free time and probably some disposable income that I could contribute towards helping kids – but I don’t give a rats, so if the church wants to do it instead – I have nothing bad to say about it. I just hope that anybody who’s responsible for a child isn’t gullible enough to buy into an imaginary man in the sky who watches while you poop and makes up the difference between government funding and realistic school necessities.