If you won't introduce Secular Humanists, then just substitute it for any secular company, like the ACLU, who would rather die before they hired a known Christian zealot.
In fact, many Christians
do work for the ACLU, or have tried cases on their behalf, or have even been represented
by the ACLU.
Can you be a youth pastor and atheist at the same time?
I think we established that religious clergy probably had to cleave to the religion they were going to be employed to service; but are you asking if someone can be an atheist and work with teens and children?
Of course. What's he gonna do? Eat them? Grow up, NJ.
Likewise, could a conservative Christian work for the ACLU when all of ACLU cases are diametrically opposite to Judeo-Christian morals?
I wasn't aware that standing up for civil rights against government encroachment was diametrically opposed to "Judeo-Christian morals", but I guess I could have gathered that from the actions of the Bush administration. Nonetheless, again, you're misrepresenting the ACLU - a common tactic by conservatives.
For instance, Brown V. Board of Education, which eliminated segregated schools, was decided in part by an amicus brief from the ACLU. Ending slavery is opposed to Christian morals?
The ACLU argued against banning interracial marriage, successfully, in Loving V. Virginia - ending racism is opposed to Christian morality? Even conservative hero Oliver North was defended by the ACLU, due to the coerced testimony that tainted his trial. Can we have a new rule? If you've been defended by the ACLU (like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly have) you don't get to trash-talk the ACLU.
But, if a Christian applied for a job at the ACLU, it just wouldn't work out because its identifiably atheist.
Again, the ACLU has no policy discriminating against Christians or any other religions, they do not take a position of atheism. They only advocate government
secularism, which is the only way a religiously plural society survives.
Furthermore, why on earth should the federal government, whose job is very defined in the Constitution, subsidizing an art program???
Fair enough. If that's the discussion you want to have - should the Federal government subsidize art - that's fine. Personally I think the arts need patronage, and the amount they spend on the NEA is a ridiculously low compared to things like farm subsidies and, oh, let's see, how about the failing Iraq war?
But you started out with
another position - "should the Federal government subsidize art
I don't like?" - and that's an idiotic position. Why do you get to be the arbiter of what art is good and what art is bad?