ACLU Says no to Churches helping Orphans

If American Idol was the host of an event to find homes for orphans, it would be billed as loving, caring, and a blessing for everyone involved. Buuuut ...... Involve an Actual church? We can't do that! Once again the ACLU lives up to it's acronym of Anti Christian Liberties Union.

Full Article http://www.10tv.com/global/story.asp...Type=Printable

Quote:

---

An Ohio children’s services agency that wants to hold a gospel concert as part of an effort to find homes for orphans is being told by the ACLU that the concert is an illegal endorsement of religion by a government agency, reports WBNS-TV.

The Franklin County Children Services agency got a grant from the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services to bring in gospel stars Vanessa Bell Armstrong and Karen Clark-Sheard for the concert. The agency hopes that foster families attending the concert will be encouraged to help house homeless children.

But the ACLU says a government agency shouldn’t be sponsoring such an event. "You have what appears to be a government sponsor of an event. That crosses the line of neutrality when it comes to religion," the ACLU says.

---

That's why liberals believe there shouldn't be censorship unless they're the ones doing the censoring. The Anti Civil Liberties Union strikes again!

If it get's money to homeless kids or somehow connects them with families what ****ing harm can a "gosbel" concert do? Oh wait it's taxpayer money. OK as a taxpayer I say, get them kids some homes. If they go into a christian family WHO ****ING CARES> oops I ranted. Ok let's make it fair, throw up some gosbel then some belly dancing and call it fair?

The real shame here is the distortion of what our founding fathers meant for the separation of church and state to accomplish....it was meant to keep government out of church affairs, not vice-versa.

The point of separation of church and state is to keep the Church out of State affairs more then vice-versa. Understanding especially how Christianity markets itself these days, it can become [much as in the days of the yall-might Spanish Inquisition] the number one slave trader of people. And having the power to influence the State would be too hopeless for those that decided Christianity isn't the 'thing' for them.

So the fact remains, it is through a Christian church that these funds are gathered. It feels as if Christianity as a whole is doing something so extraordinary that people will talk about it and everything. While it is true that I might donate money to a charity, I might find one more likely not to discriminate based on religious views. It's hard enough for me to intake the amount of bullshit with Christian-only scholarships and everything, the last thing I want is a Christian-branded charity.

I understand, however, that it should be the freedom of the church to want to organize a fund-raiser. And for the kids it is better if they get a home, I don't think they yet know whether they want to be Christians or not.

I think the main question here is would there have been the same opposition from the ACLU if it was a jewish or muslim or scientology organised event? Is it a question of civil liberties or it is a question of publicity?

Before any one asks I would consider myself christian by tradition and not by faith.

Well in my belief there wouldn't be as much oposition: if it's mainstream, it's called 'avoiding monopoly', if it's a minority, it's called discrimination. And as much as I would want this oposition to exist regardless of what group was organizing this event, I find it rather unlikely for that to be the case.

hum, lets see: homeless children get a home...............X......................religion freedom

its allways a matter of balance. Sometimes, doing "religion freedom jihad" wont help.

Shouldn't the title be..

ACLU says no to Government sponsoring Churches to help Orphans

The ACLU has no problem with churches helping orphans, just with governemental bodies sponsoring churches...

and since most of the bandwagon hoppers here didn't care to read the article the title is the only thing they are reacting to...

This is a child services organization (government body = STATE) that has a bunch of kids and they are trying to "attract" support. They thought by having a "gosbel" (read religious = CHURCH) concert with some key national gosbel artists they could attract the support they need. No bandwagon there just common sense to me. I say so what? :) I don't apply the slippery slope, we are all falling into a religious state because a small group held a concert for kids and they sung songs about god. If anything we are going the opposite way and that is just as if not more dangerous.

By the way the told the ACLU to f**k off. Do we really need to get mixed up in small things like this that actually help kids. They have their own minds and who is to say some athiest won't pick up a few? It's a concert. Hell I like some gosbel, it's good stuff like Aretha Franklin and some killer jazz artists. Most jazz and alot of big band is religious based. Let's use some common sense.

Give me a good alternative and I may join the bandwagon for the ACLU on this one. Most kids love god, he is like Santa Clause and other magical entities. So don't give me the poisoning of mind stuff and the kids should make up their own mind. They are kids they will make up their own minds no matter how strict or loose family values of religion and non-religion are growing up.

they really must be stopped.

as long as they do it within the letter of the law they dont care what they have to destroy to put something into their legal portfolios. vermin!

i suppose that closing a few orpanages would qualify them for a rather high paying coporate position. throw in a few homeless shelters and they could be a partner.