Public baptism sparks controversy

[emad]

CNN Snip
Wednesday, June 2, 2004 Posted: 8:31 AM EDT (1231 GMT)

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."

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

[MissMillie]

1. I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to use the river.

The possibility of someone being offended is not a reason to deny the church use.

If it is policy to allow groups use on a permit basis, then the group should have got a permit, but other than that,....

[Burma Jones]

2. Hmmmmmm, this sounds like a set up

Wink Wink. Oh those horrid secular humanists. It could very well be that the park officials did this in order to spark a controversy. It certainly wouldn't be the first time this sort of thing happened, from both the left and the right.

[Servo300]

3. They have public weddings

right along the Riverwalk here in San Antonio. Don't see why it should be any different.....

[eyesroll]

4. Since swimmers are allowed, I can't see why baptism isn't allowed

They're dressed, they're sober, they're not shouting obscenities or doing anything else that normally gets people kicked out of a public park.

The part about permits is unclear -- "What we try to discourage is anything not formally permitted that just sort of occurs spontaneously." Does this mean they discourage spontaneous volleyball games, if volleyball isn't an explicitly permitted use of public land?

[Bertha Venation]

5. Who's the kneejerk who busted it up?

That's all we need. One idiot's overreaction . . . . :eyes:

[Xithras]

6. Wow, this guy is truly a fascist

"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."

In other words: "We support your First Amendment rights by allowing you to do anything we give you permission to do." Wow, how fascistic. Something tells me that this guy didn't pay much attention in civics class.

It's a PUBLIC park, which means that the PUBLIC can use it for any kind of recreation...that includes fundies who want to be dunked in polluted and muddy water in order to "prove" their faith. If they needed a permit to bring a group into the park, then they should have one, but forcing them out because their use offends other people is simply unacceptable.