Well, ain’t it a small world, spirtually speaking? gobear and elfbabe just been baptized and saved. I guess I’m the only one that remains unaffiliated.
Well, that may make gobear square with the Lord but the state of Virginia’s liable to be a little more hard-nosed.
And chalk me up with the guys saying it’s private citizen’s expressing themselves on public land. The park service can say there’s a ‘no swimming’ rule for everyone…but they can’t say ‘no baptizing’.
“As I went down to the river to pray…”
I’m reading this as the ranger saying, “We don’t want people in the water. We especially don’t want gatherings of people in the water. We really don’t want people making a scene and being in the water with white robes on because they might drown even more. But mostly we don’t want people in the water.”
That, I think, is perfectly legal. I can see the pastor protesting to the ranger, “But this is a sacred and holy thing!” And the ranger replying “We especially don’t want it, then.” or something like that. In short, we’re not getting the full conversation.
That’s warsht, honey. Not warshed.
So they would be cool with me dunking whomever right beside the preacher and dunkee?
That sounds great except for the fact that they pay taxes as private citizens. The Church may not pay taxes to maintain public lands but the people do.
Martin Luther King Jr’s “I Have a Dream” speech mentions God four times and took place on public land. By your reasoning, it should not have taken place.
I think the point is that if they allow Preacher to baptize someone, they can’t stop you from going out there and dunking someone for fun. Conversely, if they allow you to dunk someone for fun, they can’t stop the Preacher from baptizing someone.
They can, apparently, make it against the rules for ANYONE to dunk ANYONE, it just can’t be selective.
um…NO
The owner of a public park is “We the People”
I really hope your post was sarcastic, but I fear not. Now if you are talking about military bases and for that matter military prisons then you have a point, but this is clearly not the case here.
[QUOTE=UncleBeer]
Any religious use of public property is inappropriate.
I guess that rules out funeral processions.
Well, you don’t suppose that the individuals involved paid their taxes? Well maybe not since they could all be renters
Okaaaaaaaaaaaaay
Renters pay property taxes indirectly anyway, through their rents.
Virginia also has property tax on vehicles.
Play it again.
puffs cigar
subbing to this thread because I want to see who gets that
Bullshit. If that were the case, there wouldn’t be any controversy about Baptists the People.
Not wrong so much as my opinion doesn’t coincide with the Supreme Court rulings. I never said it was illegal; merely, in my estimation, inappropriate to use public property for religious purposes.
Perhaps. But funeral processions, while on public property like the roadways, rarely exhibit displays of religiousity. The prayers and such take place on private property with the consent of the owner.
You make a valid point.
Ain’t the point. This baptism is sponsored by a tax-exempt and identifiable group; not any single individual.
How is this public baptism and use of public property any different than a display of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse? Many of which have been removed by judicial order.
I think in the case of the Ten Commandments it’s because they’ve been erected by government employees on government land largely. And that implies that a member of government is espousing a government view of religion.
Certainly I wouldn’t have a problem with a private citizen (including a government employee) erecting a Ten Commandments statue on private property directly across from the courthouse. It would be irritating to me but perfectly justifiable within the constitution.
Or another example: The National Cemetary at Arlington. Most days there is certainly a use of religion there in terms of funeral services. And that’s public land. Would you then want to ban such services from Arlington?
When the Ten Commandments have been placed there at the order of a government official, they are an attempt by government to influence the religious beliefs of the people. This is easily distinguished from a public park that lets the public do what it wants as long as public order is not offended, including (should individual private members of the public so choose) religious observances. There is no attempt by the government to influence the religious beliefs of the people.
It’s the attempt to influence religious belief that is the root of the wrong here. Passively allowing religious acts in public places doesn’t reach that.
First, I didn’t say that, grienspace did.
Second, it’s still the difference between an act and an object. You can, and should be able to, hold any type of meeting on public property, as long as you follow the rules. The rules can not specificly deny you the right to assemble based on the religion of your group.
Think about it like this: the judge can wear a Ten Commandments tie, and that’s protected, he can not hang a Ten Commandments plaque in the courtroom; that’s establishment.
Private religious displays on public property have done the city of Cincinnati a lot of good.
After a Jewish group won the right to display a large, lighted Menorah downtown on Fountain Square (to add to the usual Xmas tree display), the Ku Klux Klan decided it wanted in on the action too. And it’s all legal. Contributes a lot to that feeling of brotherhood around the holidays.
And it’s good for race relations (from the Cincy Post):
*"Members of the Black Fist, which has held protests against alleged police misconduct and racism, blame the group which displays the menorah.
The “so-called Jews have opened the doors for the Klan to come in” with the menorah display, said Kabaka Oba, a Black Fist leader."*
That’s not relevant to this thread, though. The Cornerstone Baptist congregation was not erecting any semi-permanent structure; they merely conducted a brief religious ceremony. Nonestablishment of religion, IMO, should not be construed to mean the discriminatory exclusion of religion from any public area. If the Klan want to march in a public park, they have a right to do so, as long as they do not deliberately foment violence.
You have to protect the speech you hate, or freedom of speech has no meaning.
And before anyone asks, I’ll pre-emptively answer, yes, I fully support Fred Phelps’s right to hold rallies on government property, but I draw the line at any permanent or semi-permanent structures that would violate the Establishment Clause.
Without arguing the dubious proposition that holiday religious displays are “semi-permanent structures”, my point was that promoting and advertising religion on public property is a divisive in-your-face tactic.
Regardless of what they can get away with legally on public property, all religious groups should think about the consequences of their acts before proselytizing.