(February 9, 2018 at 10:14 pm)Tres Leches Wrote: BUT - according to the OP, this was a government (city) event and religion does not belong in government-sponsored events. I find it hard to believe that MLK cannot be adequately honored without people singing songs about their god.
(February 9, 2018 at 11:00 pm)Khemikal Wrote: FFRF has a point. If any public money is used to fund gospel music than it's an abuse of the very same system that christer gospel music lovers depend on. They may think it's pointless now...but when public money, in any amount, is funneled to the hyms of some other hostile sect...they'll begin to see why it was a bad idea to cash the check.
(February 10, 2018 at 1:50 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: Id like to know the whole context, because it says gospel music and religious messages. You can't just preach at a public elementary school and use MLK as a cover to avoid criticism. Somehow I doubt this is really about gospel music.
I guess I can see where you guys are coming from, but I think music and art that contains a religious message should be permitted when used appropriately. For instance, if public money were used to create a documentary about MLK and the civil rights movement, I'd have no problem with gospel music being used in the background. Such a soundtrack would be appropriate to the subject matter, and may even aid in telling the story.
It's not just a matter of me thinking FFRF is making a mountain out of a mole hill. That's part of it, yes. But the other part has to do with the fact that it's music, an artform, a mode of expression which can feature more than one type of message. I could play you some gospel songs from that period that (on the surface) contain an overt religious message, but to the astute listener contains commentary about Jim Crow and the social disparity between blacks and whites.
