Posted on 06/02/2004 9:41:22 AM PDT by zechariah
Public baptism sparks controversy
Wednesday, June 2, 2004 Posted: 8:31 AM EDT (1231 GMT)
Pastor Todd Pyle baptizes Mark Maynard in the Rappahannock River at Falmouth Beach in Virginia.
RICHMOND, Virginia (AP) -- The Rev. Todd Pyle thought it was the perfect spot to baptize 12 new members of his church. The river was calm and shallow, and there was a shaded area offshore for people to stand.
"It was a very serene place," he said. "It was special."
But officials at the Falmouth Waterfront Park, a public park just outside Fredericksburg, weren't pleased. They tried to break up the ceremony, claiming it might be offensive to nearby swimmers or other people using the park. Pyle was able to finish the baptism, but then he was asked to leave.
The incident has outraged free-speech advocates.
"These people are being discriminated against because of the content of their speech," said the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, who heads the Christian Defense Coalition. "It's one of the most egregious violations of the First Amendment I have ever seen."
Mahoney's group has threatened to file a lawsuit if the park refuses to allow future gatherings by religious groups, something for which the park admits it has no written policy.
Pyle said he chose to hold an outdoor baptism, still common in parts of the South, because his Cornerstone Baptist Church in Stafford lacks an indoor baptismal pool. He said few people seemed to notice the small congregation during the 30-minute ceremony May 23.
But park officials said religious groups seeking to perform a service in the park still need to apply for a permit or else gather under a shelter or inside.
"We don't want to tread on anybody's First Amendment or constitutional rights," said Brian Robinson, director of the Fredericksburg-Stafford Park Authority. "What we try to discourage is anything not formally permitted that just sort of occurs spontaneously."
John Whitehead, director of The Rutherford Institute, a Charlottesville, Virginia-based civil liberties organization, said that's a clear violation of the church members' constitutional rights.
"Could a church have a picnic in the park and sing hymns? Of course they could," he said. "Parks have been forums since time immemorial to do these types of things."
The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia also said in a statement: "If the park rules allow people to wade and swim in the river, then they must allow baptisms in the river."
Robinson said the park's board has formed a special committee to examine its policy and to put it in writing. If the church applies for the proper permit, he said it's "certainly possible" they would be allowed to use the river for another baptism.
Meanwhile, Pyle said he will find another place to hold outdoor baptisms.
"We're disappointed," he said. "Every single person that was baptized thanked me afterward, saying [the river] made their experience more meaningful."
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I dont think Christians are getting in every one's face with their religion, I think that they are trying to practice it. And that is under freedom of religion. True diversity and sophistication permits people to practice their faith without legal interuption or called of being offended.
I dont think Christians are getting in every one's face with their religion, I think that they are trying to practice it. And that is under freedom of religion. True diversity and sophistication permits people to practice their faith without legal interuption or called of being offended.
But park officials said religious groups seeking to perform a service in the park still need to apply for a permit or else gather under a shelter or inside
If this only applies to religious groups, this is requirement is Constitutionally illegal. Just becaue you are a religious group does not mean that your free speech rights are curtailed.
Don't bet on it.
Oh, but THAT's just about sex. No big deal, since the only people who get offended about that are just uptight right-wing religious fanatics, doncha know?
River baptisms are traditional in many parts of the country. Having one is not "getting in everyone's face".
Christianity is less visible now than at any time in my life, yet there are always some like you who seem offended that it hasn't yet been legislated into complete invisibility.
LOL
The difference between America and totalitarian countries is that Americans may do anything that is not specifically prohibited while citizens of totalitarian countries may only do those things that are specifically allowed.
That figures. I've been calling Canada a socialist state for years. Nothing that comes from up north surprises me anymore.
We're about three steps from having to paint fishes on our chests and start meeting in catacombs again.
"I dont think Christians are getting in every one's face with their religion"
Are you kidding, Christians have always been interested with controlling all aspects of our lives down to what goes on behind closed doors in our bedrooms. However in the past most would not say anything for fear of being ostracized from the community.
However today that is not as much the case, in part due to the information age, as people are realizing that they have more choices in religion than simply electing to be a Christian. Which I personally find Christianity to be a very regressive religion, as many others are beginning to discover, and hence the decline in church attendance and membership, but to each his own.
The argument that persons such as myself want to outlaw Christianity is simply delusional and demonstrates a lack of understanding of current societal changes. We just don't want Christians driving the mores of society and imposing their particular belief system on others by government coercion. If they want to follow that belief system themselves and think that they derive a benefit from doing such, then more power to them. However don't assume that I must do the same.
Personally I am convinced that the religious right of the party is the main impediment to party growth today. There are many who would vote Republican except they see the religious right as radicals and zealots and do not want to be associated with them. Fortunately they tend to just not vote as opposed to voting democrat.
For further insight see today's WSJ front page article.
I was baptized in a local creek under a wooden covered bridge. The creek, known as Sandy Creek had even taken on the name of Sandy Baptist Creek because that is where local churches held their baptisms.
It's a park now because of the bridge, I wonder if any of the churches still baptize there?
If that is true then this ceremony is cut-and-dry illegal. Now, if they apply for a permit and are denied....then we have a problem.
Do you see the problem with these two statements?
If it would be illegal for the government to deny the permit, then what is the point of the permit in the first place? The only point is to provide a stumbling block to people exercising their rights and to give the goverment so form of control over people trying to exercise their rights.
What if I'm in the park, and I want to publicly critisize the goverment? Should I be required to get a permit before I exercise my free speech rights?
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say "make no law" would include a law requiring permits for those activites.
You can add some common sense exceptions (a group of 3,000 gathering at the park would require extra park personnel, so the government should be notified), but a group of 30 meeting in a corner of the park doesn't require anything special.
The argument that persons such as myself want to outlaw Christianity is simply delusional and demonstrates a lack of understanding of current societal changes. We just don't want Christians driving the mores of society and imposing their particular belief system on others by government coercion. If they want to follow that belief system themselves and think that they derive a benefit from doing such, then more power to them. However don't assume that I must do the same.
I think that you are the delusional one, for the foundation of the things you want and believe in the United States are Christian-based. It was and continues to be the insistance of Christians in having their place at the public policy table that balanaces the pagan based excesses that lead to such atrocities as Nazism, and communism.
The argument that persons such as myself want to outlaw Christianity is simply delusional and demonstrates a lack of understanding of current societal changes. We just don't want Christians driving the mores of society and imposing their particular belief system on others by government coercion. If they want to follow that belief system themselves and think that they derive a benefit from doing such, then more power to them. However don't assume that I must do the same.
I think that you are the delusional one, for the foundation of the things you want and believe in the United States are Christian-based. It was and continues to be the insistance of Christians in having their place at the public policy table that balanaces the pagan based excesses that lead to such atrocities as Nazism, and communism.
Whoo. That's *nasty.*
That's where the city officials have apparently agreed to allow a mosque to broadcast its calls to prayer (five times a day, two full minutes per call) over loudspeakers. Too bad for all the non-Muslim inhabitants of Hamtramck who will find the call annoying, intrusive and not even particularly musical -- much less offensive.
But we're becoming very accustomed to living with double standards in this country. And that's (arguably) a good thing, because unfree nations are rife with double standards.
""We don't want to tread on anybody's First Amendment or constitutional rights,"..."What we try to discourage is anything not formally permitted that just sort of occurs spontaneously."
Like throwing a frisbee?
Tossing a baseball around?
Playing scrabble?
God save us from pin-headed tyrants like this jackass...
Ed
"Too bad for all the non-Muslim inhabitants of Hamtramck who will find the call annoying, intrusive and not even particularly musical -- much less offensive."
Sounds like noise pollution to me. Perhaps you should get the EPA involved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.