Post by Seany-D on Jun 2, 2004 10:04:13 GMT -5
www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/06/02/baptism.ban.ap/index.html
(I have got to find more sources for postable material than CNN. But then again, I only read a few sites these days while slogging away on research material.)
Synopsis: baptism at public park. Group told to leave. Group has no permit. ACLU, religious defense orgs., etc. protest.
my commentary: I was solidly on the side of the church here until I read about the lack of a permit; now, I merely fence-sit. From what I recall of my Potapsco days, when staging an event at a public park, you're expected to get a permit, be it for a party, an athletic event, or a church service. You don't need a permit for individual hiking or frolicing, but planned events of religious and secular flavors require permits. Now, usually the permit is needed for something like electricity, fire, liquor, or shelter. Sounds to me like none of these things were needed for a dunking. But isn't the point of a permit also that you're reserving space for an event? Public land is to be open to all for camping, hiking, boinking, grilling, etc. If a planned event requires space, then shouldn't a permit be retained, if for no other reason than to tell others "hey, we have this space reserved for a service, please make way"? I got the impression that the group's permit would not be denied, unless someone else reserved that spot on the river for rivaling baptisms, or nekkid water polo, or whatever. The more I think about it, I think that the plaintiff here is jumping to conclusions.
However, given what they were aiming to accomplish, I would think that the park should exercise discretion and let them finish their baptisms, so long as no one else held claim to that spot for whatever reason. I believe that the rangers on hand gave a poor explanation as to why they should have not continued, in the park's eyes, but I do note that they were able to finish their ceremony.
Sean "please clean up your Bibles before leaving the park grounds" Davis
(I have got to find more sources for postable material than CNN. But then again, I only read a few sites these days while slogging away on research material.)
Synopsis: baptism at public park. Group told to leave. Group has no permit. ACLU, religious defense orgs., etc. protest.
my commentary: I was solidly on the side of the church here until I read about the lack of a permit; now, I merely fence-sit. From what I recall of my Potapsco days, when staging an event at a public park, you're expected to get a permit, be it for a party, an athletic event, or a church service. You don't need a permit for individual hiking or frolicing, but planned events of religious and secular flavors require permits. Now, usually the permit is needed for something like electricity, fire, liquor, or shelter. Sounds to me like none of these things were needed for a dunking. But isn't the point of a permit also that you're reserving space for an event? Public land is to be open to all for camping, hiking, boinking, grilling, etc. If a planned event requires space, then shouldn't a permit be retained, if for no other reason than to tell others "hey, we have this space reserved for a service, please make way"? I got the impression that the group's permit would not be denied, unless someone else reserved that spot on the river for rivaling baptisms, or nekkid water polo, or whatever. The more I think about it, I think that the plaintiff here is jumping to conclusions.
However, given what they were aiming to accomplish, I would think that the park should exercise discretion and let them finish their baptisms, so long as no one else held claim to that spot for whatever reason. I believe that the rangers on hand gave a poor explanation as to why they should have not continued, in the park's eyes, but I do note that they were able to finish their ceremony.
Sean "please clean up your Bibles before leaving the park grounds" Davis
