Public Baptism - Public Offense
Public baptism sparks controversy
Apparently religious ceremonies (at least those of a Christian persuasion) are offensive to the general public and should be disallowed. It’s good to know we live in a country that promotes equal rights for all people… well, except for those irritating Christians who refuse to contain their faith within the walls of their church. Perhaps they would like us to eat in the back of the restaurant if we insist on praying?
Shockingly, the ACLU of Virginia are even willing to admit this one:
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.”
Still, it is evident from this statement that their enthusiasm is lacking on this particular issue. The statement reads more like a forced admission than an outrage. Had the park turned away a homosexual marriage ceremony, I suspect their outrage would have been blasted as headlines across every major televised and print news source - with demonstrators present on the site within hours. Their heart just doesn’t seem in this one.
Here’s what the Stafford Parks Authorities had to say:
“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.”
Does this mean that they will suddenly require a permit to use children’s floating devices in the lakes or will they have to put that in specific writing as well? What if I spontaneously decide to play frisbee on the park grounds, will I need a permit? It is clearly the religious nature of the act that is under analysis here, thus it is a clear case of religious discrimination! Why is no one else outraged by this?
If you happen to check out the reference to the Stafford Parks link above, you will notice the following int the description of Falmouth Waterfront Park: “Swimming is allowed in the Rappahannock but it is discouraged..” Interesting. Some would say, “Well, that explains it, they’re discouraging people from being in the river.” However, please note the reasoning of the park officials for trying to break up the event:
“They tried to break up the ceremony, claiming it might be offensive to nearby swimmers or other people using the park.”
If the root problem was about legality or discouragement of swimming-type activities in the river, why would their justification include the offense of nearby swimmers?
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.
Interesting dodge, it’s “certainly possible” they would be allowed to use the river. So, it appears that they’re still not convinced that this religious behavior should be tolerated - even though it is blatant discrimination! It sounds like they’re just waiting to see how big of a storm ensues and whether or not they can get by with this in the future. I hope this causes a firestorm of controversy, because it doesn’t just apply to Christians - it applies to every person of faith in the world. “We will not tolerate your religious expression,” people are saying, “and we dare you to do anything about it!”
Additional References:
- Policy prompts protest
- Falmouth Waterfront Park
- Simply Fredericksburg - Area Parks
- City of Fredericksburg, Virginia - Boards, Commissions, and Authorities
- The Mail Archive - Religion/Law List - Discussion involving Jim Henderson, Senior Counsel, ACLJ
Tags: News and Media, Politics
