Public baptism sparks controversy

I'm with the Christians 100% on this one.

You can't baptise someone in a public park because it might offend someone?!

That's one of the silliest things I ever heard of.
 
Blue Monk said:
I'm with the Christians 100% on this one.

You can't baptise someone in a public park because it might offend someone?!

That's one of the silliest things I ever heard of.
Click to expand...

Unless they do "nekid" baptism.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Public baptism sparks controversy

Tricky said:
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.
Click to expand...
:dl:
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Public baptism sparks controversy

Tricky said:
Oh, I agree. I wish the park ranger had simply gone up to th sinny dippers and asked them to please apply for a permit next time.
Click to expand...


HAHAHAHahahahahah

I love it!
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public baptism sparks controversy

Tricky said:

Somebody actually got the "sinny dippers" joke. My prayers have been answered.:halo:
Click to expand...

:D Totally missed it. That's great.
 
triadboy said:


Unless they do "nekid" baptism.
Click to expand...

Well yeah that's completely different.

Now it is time for they laying on of hands. nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
 
Tricky said:

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

Not being critical, but the image was funny:D
Click to expand...

Oh no! Not another drive-by baptism!
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public baptism sparks controversy

Tricky said:

Somebody actually got the "sinny dippers" joke. My prayers have been answered.:halo:
Click to expand...
For the record, I got the joke. I just didn't think it all that funny. ;)

I did find it mildly amusing, though.
 
evildave said:
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.
Click to expand...

If that is what he would do with others, then I agree. He should treat them as he would any group in that situation. I use a family reunion as an example because I think it fits.

If that is how he would have acted with a similarly sized group there for a family reunion, then there is not an issue. If he treated them differently because they are religious, then I agree there is grounds for the beef. If a family gathering is allowed, then a baptism must be as well.

Given the ACLU's involvement, I am inclined to accept that he went too far. The ACLU is extremely consistent on this type of issue, and does a good job of protecting free speech where it is appropriate and distinguishing free speech from special treatment for the religious.
 
If I brought my kids to the river, they'd probably go in the water and pretend that they were sharks or something. Christians can feel free to pretend whatever they like as well, as long as whatever they were doing doesn't violate some non-religious regulation that applies to everyone.
 
Speaking of "nekid" people, I think all public decency laws should be thrown out the window. They're all just milder incarnations of those laws in the ultraconservative Islamic countries that we take pride in scorning.
 
Batman Jr. said:
Speaking of "nekid" people, I think all public decency laws should be thrown out the window. They're all just milder incarnations of those laws in the ultraconservative Islamic countries that we take pride in scorning.
Click to expand...
Oh please no. I like a society where people keep their bits and pieces put away while they are in public. There are nudist colonys and ones own home to let it all hang out. Don't get me wrong. I love nakid bodies. I have nudes on my walls and I don't mind my children seeing t!ts and A$$ on movies or the internet. But please, PLEASE, don't make me sit in someone else body fluids or force me to see some nakid wrinkled fat person. Pleeeeease?
 
Batman Jr. said:
Speaking of "nekid" people, I think all public decency laws should be thrown out the window. They're all just milder incarnations of those laws in the ultraconservative Islamic countries that we take pride in scorning.
Click to expand...

I'm going to join the dissent on that one. I have no problem with the people collectively deciding what is appropriate and inappropriate dress and enforcing that. The problem is when, as I understand some Islamic countries to be, the rules are so drastically different for different groups of people that it becomes a form of descrimination.

Is it intellectually dishonest for me to say that, even though I'm not sure I agree with a lot of what the ACLU does, I'm really glad that someone is doing it? I mean, they are a little too left for my tastes (though I hate to apply right / left to them as they aren't anyone's toady (I wanted to use a word that begins with 'b')), but I think life would be worse if someone from that viewpoint wasn't stirring things up periodically.

I suppose that, if they allow swimming, liability issues aren't involved.

Also, you know the Baptists creed, don't you: If you hold someone under water long enough, they'll come around to your way of thinking. . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom