As students head back to school, churches can explore ways to become more involved with local schools. Unfortunately, many churches are under the impression that they cannot interact with schools because of the so-called “separation of church and state.” But the First Amendment dictates no such separation. In fact, it requires that churches receive the same access to schools as other community organizations. Here are a few suggestions for ways your church can get involved with local schools.

1.     Start an After-School Bible Club: Many schools allow community groups such as the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts to use school facilities for after-school meetings. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that churches have the right to use school facilities in the same ways as these community groups [Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001)]. If your school opens its facilities for after-school use, then your church can start a Bible club where students learn Bible stories, play games, do arts and crafts, and much more.

2.     Support “See You at the Pole”: Every September, students, parents, and community members across the nation participate in “See You at the Pole,” a student-organized, student-led gathering at the school flagpole where students pray for their school, friends, teachers, government, and nation. The Supreme Court has upheld such student prayer, noting that “nothing in the Constitution…prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day” [Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 313 (2000)]. If students at your local school participate in this event, support them by helping organize and advertise the event.

3.     Collect School Supplies for Children in Need: Many children start the first day of school lacking basic school supplies such as pencils, notebooks, backpacks, and other necessities. Contact your local school’s administration and ask for a list of student supplies needed. Your church can then hold a “School Supply Drive” and create backpacks filled with supplies for the school to distribute to children in need.

4.     Publicize Your Events at School: Many schools allow community groups to distribute flyers to students to bring home or place information pamphlets in the school office. If your school allows community groups to do this, then your church has the right to promote its events in the same manner [Hills v. Scottsdale Unified Sch. Dist., 329 F.3d 1044, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (ruling that a school’s exclusion of summer camp brochure “because it offered Bible classes from a Christian perspective” was “impermissible viewpoint discrimination”)]. You can promote Vacation Bible School, a fall festival, or other church-sponsored events.

5.     Adopt a Teacher: Public school teachers face enormous pressure—from improving test scores to maintaining discipline in a crowded classroom. Your church can show appreciation for the work teachers do by adopting one. You can send them a gift basket with a note thanking them for their work or even organize a Teacher Appreciation Week in the local community.

These are just a few of the ways your church can increase its involvement in local schools. Don’t be afraid to get involved. The First Amendment protects your right to actively participate in the same way as other community groups. Alliance Defending Freedom will stand with you in defending your right to do so. If you encounter any resistance when engaging in these activities, contact Alliance Defending Freedom to have an attorney promptly review your specific situation.

Churches—What are they good for?

Besides the (hopefully) obvious benefit that churches provide to those who are already part of the flock, so to speak, churches also provide many benefits to others in the community.  These include both the spiritual and physical kind.  So why is it that some government officials insist on treating churches and other religious groups as unwelcomed members of the community?

There are many instances of discrimination against churches across the country, but I’ll just discuss two.  The first takes place in New York City where the school district has opened up its facilities to community groups when not in use.  There are nearly 1200 individual school facilities that are opened up to nearly 10,000 separate community uses each year.  Uses by groups such as J&R Pizza (an essential, coming from an Italian), Mouse, Inc. (afraid to ask), Peoples Rights (that must be important), Groove With Me (yeah, dude), Big Apple Circus (clowns are a bit creepy, but that’s a whole other thing), Crafty Ladies (I am assuming this is not ladies who are crafty, but who make crafts), Safe Space (of course), American Martyrs (not sure how long this group will last), Sex and the City filming (what can I say), and Dodge Ball Champions (they need a home, too).  There are also several churches, such as the Bronx Household of Faith, and other religious organizations from a variety of faiths that use these facilities for their worship services, or at least have for the past more than fifteen years, until recently, that is.

The City has decided that the churches present more of a problem than do these other groups.  What type of problems, you may ask.  Well, apparently there are small children brought to tears because they think their school has literally been turned into a church when they meet there once a week.  You heard it; that is what the school district claims.  But are these (made-up) kids upset because the empty school building turns into a circus (no school jokes here, please), or a Sex & the City studio (nor, here), or Madison Square Garden for the Dodge Ball champs (come to think of it, nor here either)?  Of course not, that argument is silly.  The buildings do not turn into anything when each of the thousands of groups meets there.  It’s a win-win relationship that benefits the community groups because affordable rental space is not easy to come by in New York, and it benefits the district by bringing in millions of dollars in rent.

But is that the only benefit that churches help to bring to the school community?  I think not.  Just a few other benefits include churches allowing school students to use their musical instruments free of charge; paying for the installation of an air conditioning unit in the school, and painting several schools.  This also does not include the obvious spiritual benefits to those who are hurting (and even to those who are not).  Nor does it include the other important benefits that churches bring, including reduction of crime, and the provision of clothes, food, financial and other assistance to those in need.

So why do these government officials, including the Mayor of New York, insist on kicking the churches out in the cold?  Because they can.

And briefly, the second example:  A Kids for Christ club in Owasso, Oklahoma, meets in a local school before classes begin and has been for over a year.  As with all other community groups, they have also been allowed to advertise their meetings through flyers, announcements, signs and bulletin boards.  Until recently, that is.  Why have they been singled out for exclusion?  Because they are religious, and after all, what benefits do religious groups provide?  Well, ironically, after booting out the club, school officials asked them to provide care packages– not once but twice– stocked with school supplies, toys, toiletries, etc. for needy kids, which they gladly did.  So let me get this straight.  You don’t want to treat religious groups the same as all other community groups because they are religious, but then want them to help those in need because they are religious.  I get it.  Government logic at its best.

Earlier today (April 4^th), the Supreme Court of the United States handed down an extremely important decision in ADF’s case, ACSTO v Winn.  Although the Court doesn’t always get it right, at least in my opinion, it certainly did in this case.  And it’s not simply because it was an ADF case.  It was because of the important issues that were at stake; such as, whether the ACLU or its clients can even bring a lawsuit over someone else’s donations (like your tithes) to non-profit groups (like your church), whether those donations violate the so-called separation of church and state simply because some of them go to religious groups, or the underlying issue of whether all of our money belongs to the government and only by its “grace” does it not tax it all.  And even though these issues came to the Court wrapped in the context of school choice, which is an important issue itself, these are tremendously important issues in all contexts.

For those of you not familiar with the case, the case centers around an ACLU challenge to an Arizona school choice program, brought on behalf of a few taxpayers who were offended by the fact that private religious schools–along with all secular schools–were permitted to participate in the program.  The state of Arizona is one of the nation’s leaders when it comes to school choice.  Educational options currently include traditional public schools, charter schools, virtual or on-line schools, free out of district schools, home schools, and private schools.  As part of these choices, the legislature enacted a law allowing donations to be made directly to public schools, and indirectly to private schools through non-profit 501(c)(3) organizations (called STOs or School Tuition Organizations).  Anyone can set up an STO.  Any STO can support any group of schools.  Any citizen can make a donation to any STO.  And any taxpayer may take a state tax credit up to a certain limit for the donation.

Sounds like a good plan, so what was the problem?  In my opinion there were at least two fundamental problems that the ACLU had with this program. The first is that the ACLU doesn’t like that religious groups get to participate in government programs–even on a neutral basis.  The second is that the ACLU is no friend of school choice.

As to the first problem, the ACLU claims that the program is not “neutral” because more donations are sent to religious schools.  This, they claim, skews the choices of parents toward sending their kids to religious schools.  And this allegedly violates the Establishment Clause because the government is the one that is supposedly favoring religious schools by enacting the tax credit.  Got that?  If it sounds convoluted and seems like tortured logic that is because it is.  There are so many obvious flaws in this argument that it is almost difficult to know where to begin.  But I said “almost,” so here I go.  As to neutrality, the constitution requires that the government program be neutral, not the choices of Americans in utilizing that program.  Even so, the program allows anyone to donate to any public school directly, or to any private school through an 501(c)(3) STO.  Anyone can set up an STO, and that STO can support any group of schools.  Sounds neutral to me.   What about more money going to religious STOs and schools?  A few responses.  Most logically (and supported by simple math), there are more religious private schools than non-religious ones (religious groups tend to be the ones who open private schools).  Hence, the part about more money going to religious schools.  And not a dime can go to a religious school unless a parent chooses for his child to attend that school and apply for a scholarship.  And isn’t this program supposed to be about parental choice in education?  At least I thought it was.  A bit more math.  Even though there are more private religious schools, as a matter of percentages there is more money going to private secular schools than religious ones.

And then there’s the whole “this is the government’s money” argument that the ACLU makes.  Talk about far-reaching and dangerous.  The ACLU argues that because a tax credit is given by the government for the donation, the money is really the government’s to begin with (even at oral argument before the Court, several Justices recognized that this was the essence of the ACLU’s claims).  Let’s analyze that claim for a minute.  So, if you donate to your church or other charitable organization and take a charitable contribution deduction on your tax return, does that mean that the money you donated was really the government’s and not your own?  Because as a constitutional matter, there is no difference between 30 cents on a dollar tax forgiveness for a charitable deduction (depending on your tax bracket) and a 100 cents on a dollar tax forgiveness for the tax credit.  Let’s look at where the ACLU’s logic extends.  If every dollar that the government chooses NOT to collect from us in taxes is really the government’s money, where does that stop (or start)?  To put it plain and simple, it is a communistic/ socialistic theory in its purest form.  According to the ACLU, it all belongs to the government—even the portion that they allow us to keep.  Talk about elevating the government to a god-like status.  But providentially, the Court rightly dismissed that argument by stating, “When Arizona taxpayers choose to contribute to STO’s, they spend their own money, not money the State has collected from respondents or from other taxpayers…. Private bank accounts cannot be equated with the Arizona State Treasury.”

And quickly to that whole school choice issue.  The ACLU is obviously a leftist organization, and those on the far left don’t like parents to be able to choose where their own children go to school.  These leftist groups, also including the powerful NEA (National Education Association)–which filed a brief in the case supporting the ACLU–enjoy a stranglehold on our public schools.  They control billions of dollars (including forced union dues–yes, it’s that whole union thing again) and thereby have financial control of the educational system.  And they get to impose what is taught to our children, much of which is far-left ideology.  And how are these groups doing running our schools?  Let’s see, nearly a 30% high school dropout rate, a U.S. ranking of 25^th out of 30 nations in math scores, and a staggering amount of crime in public schools.  A failing grade by any standard.  But Arizona’s program, like so many others around the country, is trying to change that by empowering parents to have more realistic options of where to educate their children.  And that threatens the left’s control, which they will obviously oppose at any cost.

But the Supreme Court saw through all of that rhetoric and held that the ACLU’s clients have no right to come to court in the first place because they have no legal standing.  In simple terms, they have no injury to complain of.  The Court agreed with ADF’s argument that the money donated is private money—not the government’s—and that someone else’s donation creates no legal injury to ACLU’s clients.  The Court wisely rejected the ACLU’s–and their allies’–extreme arguments.  And which groups filed briefs in the case in support of the ACLU?  Looks like a veritable cornucopia of groups on the far left:  National Education Association, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, American Jewish Committee, The Anti-Defamation League, American Humanist Association, Atheist Alliance International, Council for Secular Humanism, Freedom from Religion Foundation, Institute for Humanist Studies, Secular Coalition for America, Secular Student Alliance, and Unitarian Universalist Association.

So while the Court had no need to reach the question about whether the program was consistent with the Establishment Clause, which ADF believes it was, it nevertheless issued an extremely important ruling that protects school choice programs, parental rights, and charitable giving, while at the same time limiting the ability of the ACLU and its cronies to complain about such programs.  But when the next case comes up where the ACLU again challenges a school choice program, and it certainly will—ADF and its allies will be there once again to fight on behalf of our families and our children’s educational future.

_______________________________

To learn more about how ADF defends Religious Freedom in Education, visit the ADF Public Schools page.

ADF Senior Counsel David Cortman writes:

No one likes bullying (except maybe the bully).  It should not be tolerated–regardless of the reason for it.  So is one type of bullying worse than any other?  Does the student that is being bullied feel any better if he is being bullied for certain, more politically correct reasons, but not others?  Don’t think so.  So why does the left play the bullying card so much when it comes to promoting the homosexual agenda in public schools?  And why does the left so quickly accuse Christians of bullying merely because they believe that the Bible teaches against homosexual behavior?  It seems to me that there is a tremendous difference between refusing to condone or approve such behavior and advocating violence.  It’s the old admonition to “love the sinner, hate the sin.” 

I believe that one of the reasons that groups on the left come out so hard against individuals or organizations that stand up for such biblical truths is in part because they don’t like it when the behavior that they are advocating is referred to as “sin.”  They want it to be accepted as “normal.”  They want it legitimized and taught to our children as an acceptable option.  But this is not limited to the homosexual agenda, it is a societal problem.  We all like to make sin more palatable by rebranding the particular practice.  For example, we remove the focus from the taking of an innocent life by claiming a woman’s “right to choose.”  It doesn’t sound quite so bad that way.    

 So how does the left sell the harmful practice of engaging in homosexual behavior to our children?  Groups on the left, such as GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network), reframe the issue by hosting an annual “Day of Silence” that plays the bullying card.  Because, after all, what reasonable and responsible person would have a problem with putting an end to bullying?  It’s marketing genius.  It removes the focus from the promotion of an unhealthy lifestyle aimed at our questioning and impressionable youth, and puts it on stopping the reprehensible behavior of bullying.  Again, it’s shear genius.  But it’s also a sleight of hand.

No question that all bullying is wrong, period.  But opposition to bullying should not be used to advance the left’s agenda by singling out special behaviors or “characteristics” for punishment.  Any anti-bullying effort or policy should prohibit bullying for any reason.  But this tactic of singling out homosexual behavior for special treatment should be familiar as it’s the same one used to promote “hate crimes” legislation.  I often wonder, is there a new “love crime” murder that’s not quite as bad?   And why is murder of one person any worse than murder of another?  Shouldn’t murder be treated the same regardless of who is killed?  Are certain people more important or is their life worth more than the rest of us?             

And since when is a religious or moral disagreement with sexual behavior automatically deemed bullying (especially when it pertains to teens or even younger students)?  Are we no longer tolerant of differing opinions?  Are we no longer free to debate controversial issues and offer opinions based on biblical teachings?  Does the left really stand for tolerance and free speech, or do they just want Christian students to be quiet and not become involved in the issues of our day?  It appears that those on the left who are playing the bullying card are often the ones who are doing the bullying.

____________________________________

Visit the Alliance Defense Fund Public Schools webpage to learn more about how ADF protects religious liberty for students.

Focus on the Family will host Day of Dialogue this April. Find out how students can make a difference and speak the Truth.

ADF Senior Counsel David Cortman writes:

Let me first state a few lawyerly disclaimers:  I am not a scientist, nor an expert on evolution.  But I was taught in my public school education many years ago that evolution was a scientific theory.  And to my understanding, that remains true today.  So aren’t theories supposed to be tested, critiqued, and examined until they are either proven to be scientific fact (or disproven)?  Why then is the ACLU of Tennessee strongly opposing a proposed bill from that state that would allow critical thinking of evolution?  Now there’s a loaded question.

You see, ACLU’s answer is that the bill is really a guise to teach the “c” word.  Don’t say it.  Because according to the ACLU, even mentioning “creationism” or “intelligent design” is illegal in public schools.  And in this case, even not mentioning it is still illegal since the bill only calls for critiquing evolution, not teaching creation science.  All of this supposedly violates, you guessed it, the same old, same old, so-called “separation of church and state.”  Regardless, if evolution and creation science/I.D. are theories (and the ACLU would not only argue that creation science is a theory, they would argue that it is flat out untrue), what is the harm in critiquing or exploring them both?  Isn’t the ACLU a “free speech” organization open to discovering the truth no matter what the cost? Ah, but therein lies the rub.

“Truth” is not the ultimate goal.  And religion is not really the issue, at least not in the sense that the ACLU claims.  What is at issue is the vehement opposition leveled against anyone daring to question their belief system, their “god,” if you will.  And don’t be fooled; it is a belief system.  Some may choose to believe that this wonderful Earth of ours was created, excuse me, formed randomly out of a big bang, and life sprung forth from no life (tough to scientifically repeat that) and that we evolved from primordial slime, all the way to apes, and then (finally?) to our current human form (I am curious to know what we will evolve into next—unless of course, evolution is done evolving).  But, personally, I find it more plausible to believe in a Creator who purposely formed us in His own image.  And whichever “theory” is true, true science will back it up.  Proponents of either theory should not fear critique.  For if God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them, He created science too.  And if He didn’t, what does the left have to fear from critical analysis?  After all, isn’t that what our public schools are supposed to be teaching our kids?

Ironically, the ACLU claims that those of us who believe in creation science (currently more than 100 million Americans according to a recent Gallup Poll) are close-minded, religious zealots who are unable to engage in critical thinking.  All we are concerned about, so the story goes, is instituting a theocracy where we leave our brains at home (or maybe better stated, at church), and encourage others to do the same.  Well I, for one, am getting a bit tired of this type of ad-hominem attack.  IF evolution is true, then what exactly is the ACLU (and their allies on the left) so afraid of?  Christians certainly face criticism to their belief system on a daily basis.  And if the ACLU believes that the Bible can be proven untrue scientifically, go for it.  You see, most of us are not only accustomed to having our faith questioned, but expect it as part of critical thinking.  I certainly would like to think that there is a place in heaven for the “smarter” folks, along with the rest of us.  But at the same time, why is it that you can’t criticize evolution or point out its weaknesses?  Think about that with an open mind.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch