It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Public baptism sparks controversy

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 11:01 AM
link   
News link here: Public baptism sparks controversy

What does everyone think of this? Personally, I agree with the Park Rangers. Just like religion and worship should not be permitted in public school, religious services should not be permitted in public parks (or in any public place for that matter).

Religion is something sacred; something some feel very strongly for (or against). By performing religious ceremonies in a public place, you are forcing people who may not believe what you believe to witness and listen to your religious ideas. Don't say they can just leave - It is a public park. You shouldn't be subjected to things you find offensive.

I am pretty sure that public parks are supported by tax payer money. I know personally I do not want to be forced to support a public place that is being used for religious displays that I feel strongly against.

Keep religion private. The whole world does not need to be unwillingly subjected to your own personal beliefs.

Would Satanists be allowed to perform rituals in the park?

[Edited on 2-6-2004 by Cutwolf]




posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Well I think that perhaps they should have looked into getting a permit for it, but otherwise I see no problem with them having a baptism there. Contrary to popular belief, they're not forcing their opinions on anyone. People don't have to watch, don't have to participate, etc, etc. It's just like if I were to go to a park with my martial arts group and start doing our thing in the middle of a field. If people didn't want to watch us, they wouldn't have to.

In the end, I do think they should have asked, and should have gotten a permit if it was neccessary. But I think the practice of the ceremony itself is fine, just as I think that people should be able to pray in public schools. It's not forcing beliefs on anyone.



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 11:08 AM
link   
I've got no problem with it. Those being baptized probably pay taxes as well, so why shouldn't they be allowed to use the park as they see fit?They're not bothering anyone.



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Those being baptized probably pay taxes as well, so why shouldn't they be allowed to use the park as they see fit?


I want to masturbate in the park. I pay taxes so why can't it? If people don't want to watch me masturbate, they don't have to. I am not forcing anyone to watch. Why can't I do it?

Some people find it offensive! I know if there was a baptism going on right in front of my favorite picnic spot I would be upset, especially if I felt strongly against religion.

Tax payer money should not fund something that will be used for religious purposes.



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Baptism and masterbation seem like totally different things to me. Although there my be a Church of the Holy Stroke out there, I really doubt it. Taxpayers money is not funding anything. The park is there, and as you pointed out PUBLIC. You don't like it, don't look. Nobody is complaining about your Speedo.



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cutwolf
I want to masturbate in the park


I really didn't want to know that

Well i don't think there is anything wrong with it, everyone is entitled to practice their religion freely. I really don't see what the big fuss is about



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 12:00 PM
link   
The point is that if people can do whatever they want in the park regardless of how offensive it is, I want to be able to masturbate and have sex in the park. Don't like it? Don't look.



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 12:11 PM
link   
That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard since I got here. Besides, I already addressed that. So, free speach allows the KKK to speak on campus, that was discussed last week, but religious activities are not permitted? You want to explain that one to me? The way I see it, you don't like people who have a faith, because you don't. You probably scream and rant when Mormans and JW knock on your door.



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 12:20 PM
link   
public areas are open to all. we can all agree on this right?

freedom of religion is protected by the constitution yes? certainly says so so it must be! right?

we also have the freedom to peacably assemble in public areas. again it certainly says so in the constitution...

so whats the problem? only atheists can go to parks now?

technically all rivers creeks and large bodies of water fall into the "public" category of land...so if this was done in a park or not is pretty moot. the rivers lakes and other bodies of water fall under county city state or federal jurisdiction and as such it makes it public, just like a park.

however there is no right to rub one off in a park however i know of a few local parks that are used at night for such activities. so i'd be more concerned about perverts frequenting a park than a group of people wanting to "get right with god". unless they're catholic priests and then they're pretty much one and the same. (that was a joke, dont blast me for it)

now i know some denominations baptise at their church and others do it in rivers, because jesus was baptized in a river and they try to hold true to this tradition.

as an atheist i dont see the problem. i dont find it offensive and i wouldnt unless they were running around trying to convert everyone which i highl;y doubt was happening. unless they had loud speakers that could be heard from miles around touting the power of god...again i doubt this was happening.

the problem it seems is the lack of a permit, not an intolerance of religion that was the problem. if they needed a permit, they should have had one and if they didnt know they should have asked.

it doesnt look like any officials have said they couldnt do it, they just needed a permit first.

or have i missed something?



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Re-read everything. You guys are right, I am wrong.


See? Debating isn't really futile.



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cutwolf
The point is that if people can do whatever they want in the park regardless of how offensive it is, I want to be able to masturbate and have sex in the park. Don't like it? Don't look.


That is really one of the most ridiculous analogies I've ever heard. You want to know why you can't masturbate in the park? You'll be arrested for indecent exposure. Showing yourself in public is against the law. Last I checked, practicing a religion is not against the law.

Your argument does not work, because it's way off base and totally wrong, sorry that's just the way it is. Not an attack on you, just no your argument.



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Re-read everything. You guys are right, I am wrong. They should have been allowed to do this (with a permit) in this case.


See? Debating isn't really futile.



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Actually, I think it is pretty stupid, and it is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

There should be no need in a permit. Why would one have to purchase a permit in order to excercise a right?

Wolfie, it would be a violation if the government said that everyone had to be baptised, as that would really aggravate those who belong to sects that think sprinkling is the way to go.

This is a sure enough occasion for a Title 42 against the government. That will not happen, though, as people have been so reeducated, they don't know what the truth is.



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 07:07 PM
link   
This is going to shock a few people based on my normally rabid atheist views, but I don't see anything wrong with what these people did.




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.


Separation of church and state has nothing to do with someone else being offended by anothers religious tradition. It has everything to do with state sanctioning or sponsoring religon. How this park official ever came to the conclusion he did is beyond me. Now if the Park installed a baptismal font or prohibited fishing on baptism days, I would have a problem.

Hopefully this is just a case of overzealousness.



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey
public areas are open to all. we can all agree on this right?

freedom of religion is protected by the constitution yes? certainly says so so it must be! right?

we also have the freedom to peacably assemble in public areas. again it certainly says so in the constitution...


I was going to post on this topic, but I think you summed it up pretty nicely.



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 10:21 PM
link   
CutWolf:


The point is that if people can do whatever they want in the park regardless of how offensive it is, I want to be able to masturbate and have sex in the park. Don't like it? Don't look.

Public masturbation violates lewdness laws.

:shk:



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Public masturbation violates lewdness laws.

:shk:


I don't even have to go that far, if I went to the park in a thong, that's indecent. I'd have to call the cops on myself.



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 11:34 PM
link   
How would you like it if you walked into your local shopping centre to find a group of muslims praying on the floor of the food court, or some buddhist monks performing a ceremony in the male toilets, or a pagan sacrificing an animal... you'd feel uncomfortable of course, so why should non-christian have to be subject to christians rites? its the same as religion in schools, people should not be subjected to it in public places...



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cutwolf

Those being baptized probably pay taxes as well, so why shouldn't they be allowed to use the park as they see fit?


I want to masturbate in the park.


What issues of constitutional law does that raise? (excuse the pun)

The subject posted demonstrates the legal tension between competing constitutional rights i.e. religous freedom; seperation of church and state; freedom of speech................masturbation hardly seems to raise a federal issue other then to get someone name put on the National sex offenders list.



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 11:40 PM
link   
OK, intolerence round 2. A park has a lot more room than a washroom, these extreme examples to make a point are annoying. They wouldn't have a baptism in a washroom, I don't see any water there deep enough to submerge a person in. Jesus, Allah and the Sacred Pineapple, use what ever entity you think gave you sentience, and a BRAIN.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join