A. By inserting the adjective “dubious,” you are arguing the proposition–if it’s meant to be up for a specific period of time, e.g. the holiday season, then it’s a semi-permanent structure. You can call it temporary if you like, but that to men indicates a much shorter period of time.
B. Th baptism was neither promoting or advertising relgion. Although the ceremony was vicilbe to onlookers, it was not meant for them nor did the pastor evangelize.
That’s an excellent point, although as I said, the congregation wasn’t proselytizing.
As much as I dislike religion, as an advocate of free speech, I havce to defend the right of churches to equal access to public space.
[sub]And of course, I will never get credit for this when I get in an argument over religion and some theist will call me an anti-religious bigot. [/sub]
A quote I reproduced earlier from your linked story makes it clear that proselytizing was a major, if not the sole point of doing this in a public park. Once again (with feeling):
*""But it was that public declaration that Pastor Todd Pyle felt was important.
“Baptism, originally, was a public display of what took place inside–that we’re not ashamed of being a Christian,” Pyle said.
He finds it troublesome that baptisms have moved inside churches and away from view.
“Christianity is isolated indoors so much that people are confused about what it is*, so we just wanted to bring it outdoors,” he said after coming back to the shore."*
FWIW, CNN is characterizing the motives of the park officials as a desire to prevent the Baptists from being offending.
In other words, public safety didn’t seem to enter into it (since others were swimming in the same river).
They just didn’t want those people to be offensive. You know, by being in the same water as everyone else.
Why can’t they just stay with their own kind? That way, we don’t have to look at them. Keep them separate, say I. Separate beaches, separate lunch counters (so we don’t have to look at them praying), separate seats on the bus. Near the back.
Geeze this is silly. UncleBeers, they dunked heads under water and said some prayers, they didn’t install a two-ton hunk of granite chiselled with expressions of their faith in the parking lot.
Where in the First Amendment is there any prohibition of peaceful religious expression on public property? They aren’t making any permanent alterations or interfering with anybody else using the place. I’m an agnostic and a big proponent of keeping the government out of religious beliefs but this looks to me like some park ranger with an overly itchy sense of who might be offended by what.
Yes he thinks the public declaration is important. But that looks to me as if he wants his people not to be afraid to let people see them being Christians. I didn’t see anything here about preaching to the rest of the swimmers in the river. It was simply an outward statement of what happened to these people with the performance of the sacrament. (Or since they’re Baptists, with the declaration of belief.) Expressing one’s beliefs is not necessarily proselytizing. There was nothing in either article about asking other people in the park to share those beliefs.
How is it divisive? I’m an atheist and I can’t honestly say that public displays of religion bother me all that much. Why are some people so uptight about them?
I’m originally from Fredericksburg, and the Rappahannock there is deceptively tranquil. There are deep holes very close to shore. The drownings have all been accidental, and have usually involved people visiting the town and deciding to go wading.
Well, then so much the better for the Baptists–they can be immersed in the Rappahannock and arise at the Pearly Gates with their sins freshly laundered away.
If other people there were in the water and the ranger didn’t shoo them all out then I’d have deep (ha!) concerns about his actions. Especially if the church group was simply going about their business peacably.
If they want to come down to the river and do some baptizing more power to them. It’s not like there’s someone there trying to drag unsuspecting passers-by into the river.
But in prison, it doesn’t matter whether you are a majority. His/her analogy was essentially correct. It is almost impossible for a 80% majority group to be systematically abused in a democracy. The widespread notions of abuse and discrimination (“reverse discrimination”, “only white males are fair targets now” “christians are second-class citizens” etc are horrendously exaggerated).
However, I am not saying Christians can never be abused or discriminated against in the US. For example, in this case, I’m with the OP.
I’m on the Baptists side this time. Rules have got to be religiously neutral.
You don’t ask whether Evangelicals get to erect stone monuments in a courthouse; you ask whether anyone gets to do so.
You don’t ask whether Jews get to take religious holidays off from work; you ask whether anyone gets to take days off from work for personal reasons.
You don’t ask whether Santerians get to sacrifice goats in their house; you ask whether anyone gets to slaughter animals in a residential dwelling.
You don’t ask whether Baptists get to conduct public Baptisms; you ask whether anyone gets to go splashing around in the river.
The only point I might agree with Unclebeer on is that I don’t like the idea of tax exemption for religious groups: I see it as constitutionally unnecessary, even Constitutionally questionable (doesn’t giving preferential treatment to religious groups violate disestablishmentarianism?), and it creates government interference in churches when they want to do things like influence elections.
But this group should not have been singled out just because their water-splashing was a religious event.
Of course, if some smartass wanted to stand right next to them and pretend to be Flipper, bursting out of the water in the most solemn moment of the ritual and chittering, that would’ve been constitutionally protected (albeit rude), too. That’s the glory of the first amendment!