Legal challenge threatened if baptism blocked (ACLU Shocker)

Richmond Times-Dispatch ^ | Jun 3, 2004 | JUSTIN BERGMAN

[Ligeia]

Mohammad Ali called this his Rope-a-Dope tactic - it confuses the enemy

Gooood, I like my enemies confused.

[TheBattman]

OK- I'm confused:

As a former Episcopalian, I can attest to the fact that the Episcopal Church does not do baptism by immersion - but by sprinkling.... Although I will admit I've never heard of an "Evangelical Episcopal Church".....

[Sir_Ed]

"In making this baptism a public event, they are stepping out of the church realm and stepping into showmanship...To DEMAND that they be allowed to use a privately owned park, even a public owned park, that is pushing the envelope...They can find a spot on the Rappohannock somewhere that no one has to see this event."

They need to do the same thing with anyone caught reading a Bible.

Why should someone have the right to force their views on another, especailly in a public park where people should have the right to picnic unoffended.

Let them read their Bibles at home... </sarcasm>

Ed

[Ligeia]

I kind of doubt that the national organization agrees with the Virginia ACUL on this position. Usually, the ACLU is against use of public property for religious displays or use.

I bet they disagree, too. I'd like to be privy to their email exchanges today.

[Defiant]

These people should not let the ACLU defend them, I don't care if it's free. The ACLU loves to use these cases to pretend they are evenhandedly defending American liberties, while the reality is that they are an anti-American force for destroying American democracy, a bunch of leftists trying to tear down the things that made us great so they can impose their socialist nirvana.

[Ligeia]

As a former Episcopalian, I can attest to the fact that the Episcopal Church does not do baptism by immersion - but by sprinkling.... Although I will admit I've never heard of an "Evangelical Episcopal Church".

I wondered about that, too. I'm guessing the pastor is shepherding an independent church which may have been influenced by an AME (African Methodist Episcopal) church.

[ZULU]

Uhhhh. I meant the ACLU is doing this to confuse US.

They are alomst consistently anti-American and anti-Christian.

Occasionally they do something that makes sense. Sort of like the Ku Klux Klan delivering meals to needy black families as they did a few years ago. Or Saudi Arabia States providing some assistance to our war against terror.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Talk about politics making strange bedfellows.

[Ligeia]

I meant the ACLU is doing this to confuse US

Ah, I see your point, now. And it's a good one. In this case, though, I'm betting the Virginia group is sincere.

[hellinahandcart]

I think you need to read the other two articles on this subject first. There was no DEMAND until some park employee took it upon himself to try to stop a baptism that was already in progress last month.

River baptisms are quite tradional in many areas; I'd say the right to perform them has been grandfathered. And since other people, who were not being baptized, were wading in that same river and not asked to leave, I'd also say the park has no leg to stand on. Especially since they had no written policy and are only now trying to come up with one, after the fact, and only to control baptisms.

[ZULU]

Just don't let them see that cross on the Senate of the State of Virginia seal.

ACLUers are like vampyres - a cross has a strange effect on them.

[petitfour]

River baptisms are quite traditional . . . .</> They are even mentioned in the Bible a few times.

[petitfour]

Oops I forgot the </i>.

[Oberon]

I hope you brought your asbestos jammies, Race...

[Always Right]

As a former Episcopalian, I can attest to the fact that the Episcopal Church does not do baptism by immersion - but by sprinkling....

I think the policy is that it is an option to do it either way.

[RaceBannon]

Reading my Bible is NOT a public event, and is not a visible event, it is someone reading a book, usually only people who actually OWN a Bible even know that one is being read.

But a public Baptism in a Public park smacks of showman ship, not a sacred event in the person's life, this is something more for the Church Family to enjoin in, not something happening at a Park, it just does not go well with the fleshly worldly entertainment aspect of a Park.

There are plenty of places on that river that can be used, I am sure, to force the use of the park sounds like grandstanding, not just an exercise of freedom of religion.

[VOA]

There are plenty of places on that river that can be used, I am sure, to force the
use of the park sounds like grandstanding, not just an exercise of freedom of religion.

I feel about the same way.
At the same time...it's interesting to note that this incident is
from below The Mason-Dixon Line. And in the fundamentalist Christians
of my grandparents' generation, a public baptism in a river was a common event.

At the same time, I feel the more quiet "witness" (and not using a public park area)
is more effective.

Reminds me of the story about how one of Reagan's Cabinet members suggested
opening Cabinet meetings with a prayer...not a common thing in the history of the
Executive Branch.

Reagan's reply was something along the lines of "why, I've always started
these meetings with a prayer.".

[RaceBannon]

When I think of park, I think of amusement park, so, I might be visualizing the wrong thing here.

I can think of a public park nearby that is very woodsy, and has an area where the Church would not be in-your-face with it all, I might be reading this wrong.

It just sounds like people trying to stir up a mess instead of act with a little more discretion to avoid the idea of it being a sideshow baptism.

[RaceBannon]

It would be a shocker up here! :)