June 02, 2004

Yes, Virginia; There Is A Free Expression Clause

Here's an AP item about some wacky officials at Virginia's Falmouth Waterfront Park telling a Baptist pastor who was performing baptisms in the river to get off our property. Yes, it's a public park.

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.


Yes, friends, we thought that the Soviet Union was gone, but it's ever so slowly regenerating right here at home. Any day now someone is going to sue to ban any and all religious expression from public property. I used to say that and it sounded like a joke.
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."

Mahoney's group has threatened to file a lawsuit if the park refuses to allow future gatherings by religious groups, something for which the park admits it has no written policy.


Who needs a written policy when we've got Bolsheviks in charge? But there is a written policy; it's called the Constitution.
Pyle said he chose to hold an outdoor baptism, still common in parts of the South, because his Cornerstone Baptist Church in Stafford lacks an indoor baptismal pool. He said few people seemed to notice the small congregation during the 30-minute ceremony May 23.

But park officials said religious groups seeking to perform a service in the park still need to apply for a permit or else gather under a shelter or inside.


What's the difference between being indoors or outdoors? It's still public property! This is where our Rights are supposed to be protected! It's not that it was a baptismal service, but that it was performed outside?! Pardon me, boys, but yer just makin' this up as you go along without a frickin' CLUE about what your duty is, aren't ya...?

Get this:

"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."

Drat! My head just exploded! Pardon me while I gather the pieces and duct tape them back together...

...Okay, I'm back.

"We try to discourage...anything not formally permitted". These people aren't my countrymen; they're tyrants. Pure and simple.

"It's illegal unless we specifically say it's legal." "There are no Rights, only privileges." "All authority comes from the State." This is the creed of dictators. I'd like to think that Brian Robinson merely chose his words sloppily. But, clearly, he and the Fredericksburg-Stafford Park Authority act on their belief that they alone are the Law.
If that's not clear now, just wait 'til later.
In the meantime:

John Whitehead, director of The Rutherford Institute, a Charlottesville, Virginia-based civil liberties organization, said that's a clear violation of the church members' constitutional rights.

"Could a church have a picnic in the park and sing hymns? Of course they could," he said. "Parks have been forums since time immemorial to do these types of things."


And encouragingly:
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."

Hooray for the ACLU! Sometimes they actually do something that reminds me of why I became a member.
Robinson said the park's board has formed a special committee to examine its policy and to put it in writing.

I suggest examining Constitutional Law and writing that into your purblind policy...
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.

Didn't you hear what the ACLU just said you Stalinist barf bag? You're a government employee; a public servant. You do only what we tell you you can do! Stop powwowing with your commie clique, put down the crack pipe and read the damn Law!
Meanwhile, Pyle said he will find another place to hold outdoor baptisms.

"We're disappointed," he said. "Every single person that was baptized thanked me afterward, saying [the river] made their experience more meaningful."


No. N-n-n-n-NO! Reverend Pyle, gather up a few other pastors and priests and have a baptismal bash and dare the Park "Authority" to do something about it! Don't run from this; you have been chosen to fight this fight!

Look at this whole cross-on-the-California-seal business. Pretty soon we'll hear some thalamicly challenged theophobe telling us that Thomas Jefferson needs to be removed from our currency because to picture Jefferson on a Government (public) note is an endorsement of his philosophy of Liberty which is anchored in his religious beliefs and therefore violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Sounds like a joke right now, doe'n't it?

Posted by Tuning Spork at June 2, 2004 09:20 PM
Comments

Saw this item too. It irked me at first, until I considered one detail: the guy planned an event in a public park, but never bothered to contact the park ahead of time. Forget legalities... that's just rude.

Bottome line: Rev. Pyle is hiding his civic discourtesy behind religious freedom. If they guy had a shred of what I would consider Christian humility, he would apologize--then ask if he could come back next week to baptize more folks. Bible-belters love to speculate on What Would Jesus Do. Well, that's my guess.

What's yours? Lawsuit? WWJS? Hmm... an intriguing interpretation.

Posted by: Matt McHugh at June 4, 2004 01:51 AM

I don't agree Matt. The Rev wasn't using any facilities, it was just a group using the public access water. I don't have to contact the park beforehand if I and a bunch of friends decide to use the park, as long as we don't use one of the shelters or other facilities that are reserved ahead of time.

In his place, I'd just show up again to do the baptisms and if the same thing happened, then I'd get the media involved in a big way. It's not a freedom of religion issue, it's a one-rule-for-everyone issue. And that's exactly what I'd be saying to anyone and everyone who'd listen.

Posted by: Ted at June 4, 2004 07:33 AM

OK, then. Let's say you're in his place and you do what you propose: just show up to do more baptisms, and if park officials bother you, use that to bring on more media attention.

What's your purpose in doing this? To serve the needs of your congregation and initiate new members? Or to grab more headlines? Seems to me you're willfully baiting the park, hoping for the chance to get attention--fabricating a cause celeb out of a relatively minor injustice that can most likely be rectified with a fairly small compromise.

Again, in my interpretation, that seems pretty counter to Christian principles. But, again, perhaps you interpret things differently.

Posted by: Matt McHugh at June 4, 2004 02:11 PM

Hi, Matt.

As Ted said: A permit is used only to reserve use of a facility -- say, a shelter or baseball diamond.
It's issued only to prevent conflicts when two or more groups show up and want to use the same facility.
But it's still public property and so NOT having a permit doesn't mean that you can't use it.

As for getting a few hundred baptisms going at once: that'd probably be a disruption to the other beach-goers, and is the kind of thing that would require a permit.

I mentioned that as a course of action at the end only half-heartedly, and we're probably in agreement on it being inappropriate, but I gotta disagree with you on this:

"...fabricating a cause celeb out of a relatively minor injustice that can most likely be rectified with a fairly small compromise."

"Compromise?" If we start compromising our civil liberties just because some park official (not even the other patrons) thinks that our exercizing them might offend someone then we're on a slippery slope to Orwellian forced conformity.

If we're going to make it a rule (unConstitution though it'd be) that a baptism cannot be performed at all, without a permit, then we've changed the entire way we resolve "disputes".
It's the same thinking that leads some people to believe that they have a Right to "freedom from religion" or "freedom from speech".
Closed-mindedness overtakes the hunger for information.

If my Right to speak or to freely exercize my religion (whichever that religion might be) is in any way tempered by your so-called "freedom from religion or speech" then you have taken away my Right to speak and to freely exercise my religion.

We can't have both a freedom of and a freedom from. A freedom from seeks only to stifle the freedom of.
Think about that very carefully.

That the Reverend Pyle was not an impediment to anyone else's enjoyment of the park, or violating anyone's civil Rights, means that he had every Right to perform the baptisms just as the ACLU has said.
He shouldn't negotiate his Rights away to the whims of park officials who've over-stepped their authority.

The Reverend Martin Luther King willfully broke laws that were on the books because he believed that they were unConstitutional and I don't recall anyone ever saying that King was unChristian for doing so.

Our Liberties need to be defended whenever and wherever they are being challenged by either misguided, tyranical, or jus' simply Constitutionally under-educated government employees.

Do we disagree on this?

Posted by: Tuning Spork at June 4, 2004 07:01 PM

Matt,
The idea for the publicity is to embarrass the park authorities who've overstepped the limits to what they can and cannot do. That's also why I specifically said it's not a religious freedom issue. Petty tyrants, or those who foolishly abuse their authority, often make a stand to avoid the appearance of losing any power that they think they have. Make 'em look stupid by letting the media tell the story, to show the public just what kind of silliness they're up to. This is no different than if a group of Boy Scouts were harassed because their presence might offend gays using the park (a particularly bad bit of nitwittery that actually happened in San Diego).

Posted by: Ted at June 4, 2004 10:53 PM

Agreed. We should defend our civil liberties--and peaceful civil disobedience is a time-honored way to do so. If you really feel as a matter of principle it's your right to gather in public parks for religious ceremonies with the same privilege of spontaneity afforded a Frisbee toss, then by all means, fight for it.

Climb that mountain, if you must -- but recognize you made it out of a molehill. (Granted, you can trip over molehills, so being wary of them isn't unreasonable.)

And--just to illustrate the spectrum of folks who call themselves Christians--I'm sure there were (and are) quite a number of sheet-n'-hood wearin' fellers who would hurl religious aspersions at MLK. And they stridently defend their right of free assembly--as does the ACLU. I whole-heartedly agree that "one rule for everyone" is a fine principle-- but it can be a tad tricky in a world where not everyone likes everyone else.

(P.S. - Just want to mention that I never introduced anything about "freedom of" v. "freedom from." I try to avoid arguments based solely on prepositions.)

Posted by: Matt McHugh at June 5, 2004 12:44 AM

Noted! ;)

Posted by: Tuning Spork at June 5, 2004 03:42 AM

دردشة عراقية
دردشة عراقية
شات عراقي
دردشة
شات
دردشة فلسطين
دردشة فلسطينيه
شات فلسطيني -
عراق
عراقية
دردشة عراقية
دردشة العراق
شات عراقي
مركز رفع
فديو
افلام
سكس
دردشة كويتية
دردشة اردنية
دردشة الاردن
شات الاردن
دردشة عراقية
دردشة العراق
شات عراقي
جات العراق
دردشة سعودية
دردشة السعودية
شات سعودي
شات كتابي
مقالات
دردشة عراقية
دردشة سعودية
دردشة مصرية
دردشة بحرينية
دردشة كويتية
دردشة ليبية
دردشة اردنية
دردشة لبنانية
دردشة قطرية
دردشة عمانية
دردشة اماراتية
دردشة فلسطينية
دردشة تونسية
دردشة سورية
دردشات مغربية
دردشة سودانية
دردشة يمنية
دردشة جزائرية
دردشة عراقية صوتية
دردشة خليجية صوتية
منتدى
مركز رفع
دردشة كويتية
شات كويتي
شات الكويت
دردشة
دردشة عراقية
شات عراقي
جات عراقي
العاب
العاب فلاش |
اغاني |
موقع اغاني |
اغاني عراقية |
اغاني مصريه |
اغاني اردنيه |
اغاني اجنبية |
اغاني سعودية |
اغاني فلسطينية |
اغاني اماراتيه |
اغاني سودانية |
اغاني قطرية |
اغاني مغربية |
اغاني بحرينية |
اغاني سورية |
اغاني لبنانيه |
اغاني يمنية |
اغاني جزائرية |
اغاني عمانية |
اغاني ليبيه |
دردشة سورية
دردشة روسيا
شات سوري
دردشة مصرية
دردشة مصر
شات مصري
قسم الاسلامي
ايمو
صور ايمو
صور بنات ايمو
صور كوثك
صور بنات كوثك
وسائط
صور رمزية
وسائط 2011
صور للمسن
صور للمسن 2011
برامج جوال
دروس تصميم
دروس فوتوشوب
صور تصميم
صور تصاميم
صور بنات للتصميم
صور شباب للتصميم
اكشن
سكرابز
خطوط
فرش
خامات
ملفات سوتش مفتوحة
سوتش ماكس
دروس سوتش ماكس
اغاني عراقية
اغاني عراقية 2011
اغاني عربية
اغاني عربية 2011
اغاني اجنبية
اغاني اجبينة 2011
كليبات عراقية
كليبات
برامج
ابراج
ابراج اليوم
حظك اليوم
مسابقات
اسئلة واجوبة
الغاز
افلام اجنبية
تحميل افلام اجنبية
افلام اجنبية 2011
افلام عربيه
تحميل افلام عربيه
تحميل افلام عربيه 2011
افلام كارتون
مسلسليات
ستار اكادمي
مسلسلات تركية
اخبار فنية
اخبار فناين
اخر اخبار فناين
تحشيش
نكت
نكت عراقية
نكت عراقية جديدة
صور تحشيش
كرة قدم العالمية
رياضة العراقية
اخبار رياضة عراقية
مقاطع صور لاعبين
صور لاعبين
صور كرة قدم
صور
صور عامة
صور غريبة
معالم صور
صور فنانين عرب
صور فنانين اجانب
صور مطربات عربيات
صور مشاهير عرب
صور فنانين 2011
صور فنانين اجانب
صور مطربات اجنبيات
صور فنانين اجانب 2011
صور سيارات
صور سيارات 2011
صور دراجات
صور انمي
صور انمي 2011
خواطر
عذب كلام
خواطر 2011
قصص
قصص جديدة
قصص قصيره
شعر شعبي
شعر شعبي عراقي
ابو ذيات
دارميات
شعر شعبي 2011
شعر شعبي حزين
ديكور
اثاث

Posted by: دردشة عراقية at July 14, 2011 12:14 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Site Meter