Banning of public baptisms a First Amendment violation

How do you know when you have done something outrageously wrong? When you have the Christian Defense Coalition and the American Civil Liberties Union working against you over the same issue. This is precisely the predicament that park officials at Falmouth Waterfront Park in Virginia have found themselves in. On May 23, The Associated Press reported that the Rev. Todd Pyle, pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Stafford, Va., decided that he would take a few members of his congregation to the waterfront to baptize 12 people because his church has no indoor baptismal font. Park officials, however, did not like the idea and tried to break up the event on the grounds that a public baptism might be "offensive" to those nearby. This is unacceptable and a clear violation of First Amendment rights. Has society today become so sensitive that witnessing a peaceful religious ceremony in a park is offensive? There once was the expression, "Your rights end where mine begin." Apparently, the right to not be subjugated to being in the proximity of a religious service is greater than the right to hold the religious service itself. Or perhaps sensitivity is not the issue. Park officials later said that religious groups need a permit to perform any kind of service in the park, but also admitted that it has no official written policy of this. The whole ordeal seems to have been a random case of religious discrimination. However, it is understandable that it might be necessary to obtain permits for large, organized gatherings such as church and community-wide picnics, concerts and "big tent revivals." However, there is no reason why small spontaneous gatherings, such as this baptism, should have to obtain permits. Consider a different scenario. Suppose that a small group of high school or college students at a local church decided to meet in the park after the morning church service to have a picnic. One student brings his or her guitar and begins to play and sing contemporary hymns; the others sing along. Could this spontaneous event be banned from the park under the notion of it being a "religious service?" Few would disagree that it is religious in nature, but should these students be required to get a permit? And if so, if the songs were secular, would a permit still be needed? Is it simply the religious nature of the songs which would require a permit? Very few people would have the courage to say that these kids must go through the time and hassle of getting a permit to sing their songs. What is the difference between one small group singing "praise and worship" songs versus another having baptisms? Besides the sacramental nature of baptism, not much. There is no reason why one activity should be allowed freely and another restricted. The park is a public park, and the gathering was small and peaceful. If the event was a large, loud gathering of church-goers, or if it was in the public right-of-way or blocking streets, it would be understandable to require a permit. As it was, the actions of the park officials were completely unacceptable. The ACLU of Virginia made the following comment in its press release: "The rules for religious expression in a public park are actually pretty simple because they must be the same as for all other activities. If the park rules allow people to wade and swim in the river, then they must allow baptisms in the river. If the rules allow groups to gather for cultural, social or political purposes, then they must allow religious gatherings as well. If the park allows the use of amplified sound, then religious voices have the same right to be amplified as other voices." The Rev. Patrick Mahoney, head of the CDC, threatened to sue if the park refuses to allow future gatherings by religious groups. "These people are being discriminated against because of the content of their speech," Mahoney said. "It's one of the most egregious violations of the First Amendment I have ever seen." Many times in cases such as this, the best solution is civil disobedience. The Rev. Pyle said he will perform his baptism elsewhere, but other churches should not be frightened into having similar activities; then and only then will religious freedoms prevail. Students at A&M should not dismiss this case as something isolated occurring thousands of miles away. It is not an unfamiliar sight to be walking around campus and see a group of people praying or singing hymns. There are even stories of some ministers performing baptisms in the various fountains around campus. If the actions of the officials at Falmouth Waterfront Park go unchallenged or are even deemed appropriate, it is entirely possible that religious freedoms might be violated close to home.


My Opinion: I believe that public baptisms are completely protected under the first amendment. Some argue the claim that it could be offensive to others. This has about the same merit as someone saying that Catholics should not be able to carry a rosary in public. They are not hurting anyone or promoting violence. The right to practice ones religion in clearly protected under the first amendment and anything less it a violation.