Public baptism sparks controversy

[triadboy]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/06/02/baptism.ban.ap/index.html

I don't have the whole story - but I tend to agree with the xians on this one. If they are at a nice secluded area doing baptisms - who gives a crap?

I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks.

 

[Tricky]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/06/02/baptism.ban.ap/index.html

I don't have the whole story - but I tend to agree with the xians on this one. If they are at a nice secluded area doing baptisms - who gives a crap?

I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks.

The problem is not asking permission first.

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.

And I wonder if these same Christians would worry about free speech rights if they happened to come across a group of pagans sacrificing a live goat at their makeshift alter.

This sounds very much like more fodder for the Christians to whine about how they're being discriminated against.

 

[Tony]

I found this piece of double-speak particually amusing:

"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."

 

[wollery]

Whilst I agree that the xians would be up in arms if some other religious group tried something like this in a public park (I'm guessing that an open air Bris would be fairly distasteful to them) I'm actually on their side here. The pastor wasn't evagelizing to unwilling passers by, they weren't grabbing people off the banks and throwing them in against their will. It was a private consentual act (ooher missus ) of worship like a bunch of people quietly praying or discussing their favourite biblical passages, and if that isn't what the 1st ammendment is all about then wtf is?

Edited to correct an erroneous "they're"

 

[RandFan]

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.

As long as the park is not sponsoring the activity or endorsing it then I think that such activity should be allowed. If swimming is allowed then what is the problem with baptism?

 

[pgwenthold]

As long as the park is not sponsoring the activity or endorsing it then I think that such activity should be allowed. If swimming is allowed then what is the problem with baptism?

If city regs require a permit for a gathering of more than X people, and the gathering was more than X people, then they are required to have a permit.

The fact it was a baptism is irrelevent.

If you have qualms about the permit requirement, feel free to bring them up.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Re: Re: Public baptism sparks controversy

This sounds very much like more fodder for the Christians to whine about how they're being discriminated against.

True, but I think the park is providing that fodder. It's overzealous actions like this that give religious groups ammo to make false claims that we atheists want to ban all public displays of religion. I think the majority of atheists don't care about such things as long as we aren't being forced to participate. I know I don't.

 

[drkitten]

Whilst I agree that the xians would be up in arms if some other religious group tried something like this in a public park (I'm guessing that an open air Bris would be fairly distasteful to them) I'm actually on their side here. The pastor wasn't evagelizing to unwilling passers by, they weren't grabbing people off the banks and throwing them in against their will. It was a private consentual act (ooher missus ) of worship like a bunch of people quietly praying or discussing their favourite biblical passages, and if that isn't what the 1st ammendment is all about then wtf is?

The First Amendment is about content-related restrictions on religion, for example, saying that the Baptists could do something that the Catholics couldn't.

That doesn't give churches a free pass to ignore laws that apply to everyone. If you run a red light, you get a ticket -- even if you're a minister. If there's a rule about group activities in the park without appropriate permits, then it applies to the Baptists just as strongly as it applies to the Shriners or the local fraternity.

 

[Tricky]

Re: Re: Re: Public baptism sparks controversy

True, but I think the park is providing that fodder. It's overzealous actions like this that give religious groups ammo to make false claims that we atheists want to ban all public displays of religion. I think the majority of atheists don't care about such things as long as we aren't being forced to participate. I know I don't.

Oh, I agree. I wish the park ranger had simply gone up to the sinny dippers and asked them to please apply for a permit next time. But you have to empathize with the poor park ranger. He has to wear a uniform every day and almost never gets to arrest anybody.

 

[pgwenthold]

The First Amendment is about content-related restrictions on religion, for example, saying that the Baptists could do something that the Catholics couldn't.

That doesn't give churches a free pass to ignore laws that apply to everyone. If you run a red light, you get a ticket -- even if you're a minister. If there's a rule about group activities in the park without appropriate permits, then it applies to the Baptists just as strongly as it applies to the Shriners or the local fraternity.

Exactly, which is why this again comes down to the situation of religious people claiming persecution because they can't get special treatment.

If a family reunion requires a permit to use the park, then your religious gathering does as well.

 

[pgwenthold]

Re: Re: Re: Public baptism sparks controversy

True, but I think the park is providing that fodder. It's overzealous actions like this that give religious groups ammo to make false claims that we atheists want to ban all public displays of religion. I think the majority of atheists don't care about such things as long as we aren't being forced to participate. I know I don't.

As an atheist, I do care that religious people get to do things that I am not allowed to do. I am not allowed to have a family reunion in the park without a permit, so why should they be able to have a religious gathering?

This is clearly an issue of religious people getting preferential treatment to a secular activity. I care about that.

 

[wollery]

If it's the case that any gathering within the park for a specific purpose requires a permit then they were in violation of that and the park officials should have broken it up on the spot, not let them finish first.

However, from the article it seems clear that there is no such requirement, if thirty people gathered there the day to celebrate someones birthday would they require a permit? I hope not, as that sort of thing is often spur of the moment.

What about some friends out on their lunch break discussing politics, or parents teaching their kids to swim, or an impromptu soccer game? How about some friends gathering for a pre-arranged soccer game, would you expect them to get a permit?

 

[Tricky]

However, from the article it seems clear that there is no such requirement, if thirty people gathered there the day to celebrate someones birthday would they require a permit? I hope not, as that sort of thing is often spur of the moment.

LOL. Are you saying that these people just happened to be in the park, and a baptism broke out?!!

Not being critical, but the image was funny

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Public baptism sparks controversy

As an atheist, I do care that religious people get to do things that I am not allowed to do. I am not allowed to have a family reunion in the park without a permit, so why should they be able to have a religious gathering?

This is clearly an issue of religious people getting preferential treatment to a secular activity. I care about that.

Actually, I have an issue with either the family reunion OR the baptism needing a permit. But that's a whole other topic and more suited to the politcs forum.

 

[evildave]

Yeah, the park officials definitely went way overboard.

I also take issue that people should be required to get a permit to do things at a park, other than to exclusively reserve a section for some period. This, only because people would otherwise compete and (probably) fight over access.

Certainly, the official could have only had a quiet chat with Mahoney about reserving/scheduling the time at the water, so they don't get there and discover swimmers and canooers and whatnot all over their favorite spots. Then just give him the papers, and he'd reserve his time like everyone else.

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."

Isn't the ACLU usually cited by fundies as the enemy of all things religious? Who'd have guessed they were actually neutral, eh?

 

[triadboy]

That doesn't give churches a free pass to ignore laws that apply to everyone. If you run a red light, you get a ticket -- even if you're a minister. If there's a rule about group activities in the park without appropriate permits, then it applies to the Baptists just as strongly as it applies to the Shriners or the local fraternity.

Totally agree. If a permit was required - they really shouldn't whine too loud.

 

[triadboy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Public baptism sparks controversy

He has to wear a uniform every day and almost never gets to arrest anybody.

 

[triadboy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Public baptism sparks controversy

As an atheist, I do care that religious people get to do things that I am not allowed to do. I am not allowed to have a family reunion in the park without a permit, so why should they be able to have a religious gathering?

This is clearly an issue of religious people getting preferential treatment to a secular activity. I care about that.

I see that point.

 

[triadboy]

If it's the case that any gathering within the park for a specific purpose requires a permit then they were in violation of that and the park officials should have broken it up on the spot, not let them finish first.

However, from the article it seems clear that there is no such requirement, if thirty people gathered there the day to celebrate someones birthday would they require a permit? I hope not, as that sort of thing is often spur of the moment.

What about some friends out on their lunch break discussing politics, or parents teaching their kids to swim, or an impromptu soccer game? How about some friends gathering for a pre-arranged soccer game, would you expect them to get a permit?

That's why I say - I didn't have the whole story. I've now agreed with everybody's opinion. (I am whack - as the kids say nowadays)

 

[triadboy]

LOL. Are you saying that these people just happened to be in the park, and a baptism broke out?!!

Not being critical, but the image was funny

The Holy Spirit happened to be in the area and....