Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
CBD:
cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com


Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Jay Guevara 2025
Jim Sunk New Dawn 2025
Jewells45 2025
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups





















« New Feature: Latest Comments | Main | Leftist Idiocy Watch »
June 07, 2004

Christians Banned From Performing Baptisms in Public Park Because It "Might Offend" Others

BlatherReview has the link, extensive quotes, and rebuttal. This is just a tease:

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.

...

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.

...

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.

...

"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."

Indeed. I'm sure if an anti-war protest just "occurred spontaneously," you'd be just as quick to deny them their free speech rights on the rather nebulous standard of "offending others."


posted by Ace at 05:10 AM
Comments



If you know Fredricksburg, this is just astounding.

Posted by: blaster on June 7, 2004 07:42 AM

"What we try to discourage is anything not formally permitted that just sort of occurs spontaneously."

I wonder what else would fall under that category? Picnics? Perhaps running and laughing? I doubt any of that is "formally permitted."

But you can see their point too. Spontaneity is a real threat to a free socitey. And religion too. Or something.

Posted by: marc on June 7, 2004 09:37 AM

I am from Fredericksburg and I hasten to assure everyone that WE'RE NOT ALL LIKE THAT. Blaster's right -- we're mostly sensible people here, perhaps a little quieter than average. And no one I know hereabouts would object to a river baptism. Mind you, I also don't know anyone who would feel they needed to participate in such a thing, but they wouldn't object.

Too bad the nannies among us are the ones with time to run for office.

Posted by: Steve Johnson on June 7, 2004 10:02 AM

Time to vote some people out of office, eh Steve?

Posted by: rdbrewer on June 7, 2004 10:06 AM

I am a passionate advocate of both free speech and freedom of religion, but seriously, I think we're doing violence to the word "speech" if that's the constitutional basis for any threatened lawsuit, here. Call it equal protection, call it right of assembly, if you will. But calling it "speech" in a way justifies the frequently ridiculous interpretations of the word "speech" that we get from the ACLU.

Posted by: Aaron on June 7, 2004 12:49 PM

Shocking when considered in the same context as the 5X a day prayer calls the moon God types want to bleat out of their Michigan mosque.

Posted by: keggin on June 7, 2004 02:39 PM

Keggin,

Consider the differences, however. The Muslims want to broadcast a religious message from their own property, and the opponents thereof say that amounts to noise pollution. In Fredericksberg, we're looking at the use of public property (I assume the property is publicly owned) by private citizens.

In other words, the first situation is a clear-cut nuisance case - either the loud broadcasting of religious messages is noise pollution or it is not - and the second is about the right to use public property according to the Constitutionally protected freedom of assembly. These two stories are not in the same "context" - and that fact makes the Fredericksberg story so much more shocking.

Posted by: Aaron on June 7, 2004 03:07 PM

Aaron,

No disagreement here. I guess what I failed (miserably) to convey was this. Imagine the reverse. Say a Christian church wanted to broadcast a snipet of scripture 5X a day from it's bell tower, and that a Muslim group wanted to use a park for one of their rituals, perhaps daily prayers. Which group would take the most heat and which group might be expected to get the kid glove treatment?

Posted by: keggin on June 7, 2004 05:48 PM

I think we all know the answer to that.

Posted by: Aaron on June 7, 2004 05:49 PM

I still see it as a speech issue, as well as -- in this particular case -- an assembly issue.

The assembly issue comes in only because they were asked to leave the park. But, the speech is there because they were originally told that the baptism might be offensive to someone.

It's not the presence per se of a reverend and some Christians, but what they were doing and saying that started the flap.

Did any of you guys click on the link, btw. There's some good reading in the comments. There's a reader's rebuttal to my fisking and I rebutted the rebuttaller and, I think, may have made a convert!

Thanks fer the link, Ace!
:D

Posted by: Tuning Spork on June 7, 2004 07:02 PM

"It's not the presence per se of a reverend and some Christians, but what they were doing and saying that started the flap."

True, but based on what I read, I don't think that's enough to make this a speech issue.

I get the impression that this Christian group went to the park for purely non-speech-related motives. That is, they did not intend to communicate some message to anyone outside of their group, as would have been the case if they were baptizing and proselytizing, or using the baptizing as a tool to proselytize other park-goers. In my opinion, because they didn't intend their activities as a communication, it wasn't speech.

My understanding is that I do not have Supreme Court precedent on my side. A liberal friend of mine and I were discussing a Free Speech question and he pointed me to a Supreme Court case that made the intent of the actor look irrelevant. But with all due respect for the Supreme Court, I think private debates about free speech (such as the one you and I are having) are not bound by Supreme Court precedent, unless we're trying to predict what the Supreme Court would do.

I think that the First Amendment speech clause is designed for a very specific purpose: to let me communicate with you or with anyone else without the government stepping in to monitor/censor/supress that communication. If I don't intend to communicate anything, an ex post facto reliance on the Free Speech clause strikes me as artificial, and beyond the intended scope of that clause. It seems to me that the ACLU is too willing to apply the Free Speech clause to non-speech cases, and I find that obnoxious. It is no less obnoxious when groups other than the ACLU do so, as well.

Just my opinion, of course.

Posted by: Aaron on June 7, 2004 07:54 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?








Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]
Top Headlines
Forgotten 80s Mystery Click
Hint: Chopper noises on an oscillator/synthesizer
City nights, summer breeze makes you feel all right
Neon lights, shining brightly, make your brain ignite
See the girls with the dresses so tight
Give you love Give you love if the price is right
Black or white, in the streets, there's no wrong and no right, no!
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: The economy is good, and tariffs aren't causing inflation! Is selling arms to Europe for Ukraine any better? AI spells the end of the Green Energy boondoggle, Epstein's getting boring, And ICE needs to be unleashed!
Susie Wiles brings calm to Trump admin -- helping the president rack up wins When was the last time you saw her name in the media? Is it possible that the grownups are now in charge? [CBD]
Update on Jasmine Ratchet: The DEI Dum-Dumb is eyeing a Senate run, because why should Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke get paid millions every two years to get blown out in the Texas senatorial election? Shouldn't she get some of that sweet sweet Act Blue graft?
Crockett addressed the possibility in an Instagram post where she said she would make a decision "depending on how many people reach out," but that her main focus has been legislating in the House of Representatives.
The post came after a poll from the National Republican Senatorial Committee was published showing that she was leading the pack of candidates with 35 percent in a hypothetical primary and was leading former Senate candidate Colin Allred, who was at 20 percent, per the Latin Times.

The Republican Senatorial Committee claims that she's ahead? LOL, that might be a little troll-poll.
Forgotten 90s Mystery Click: When Grunge Ruled the Earth
Did you hear the distant cry
Calling me back to my sins?
Like the one you knew before
Calling me back once again
Vlogging the Revolutionary War
[Hat Tip: Vox Clamantis] [CBD]
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: The shit sandwich of a spending bill that the Senate wants us to eat, NYC is screwed, the military rebounds, Iran may be stuck in its Mullah nightmare, and much more!
NeverTrump Nebraska Congressman Don Bacon throws in the towel, won't seek reelection in 2026
I wonder if he's the one who complained about the BBB imposing work requirements on able-bodied adults without children for Medicaid.
Ever Wonder How The Woke Left Can Be So Obviously Hypocritical And Automatically Reject All Opposing Facts? Below are four short 5 minute videos of author Melanie Phillips explaining why. The Disturbing Logic Of The Left.*** The Psychology Behind Why the WOKE Left Can't Win Arguments.*** The Bizarre Union of Woke and Jihad.*** Truth is a Right Wing Concept. [dri]
Recent Comments
Weasel: "Posted by: Ben Had at July 20, 2025 09:56 PM (HFcK ..."

Somewhere South of I-80: ""I had the honor of carrying that heavy ass fukin' ..."

Anna Puma: "[i]Yamato[/i]'s 460mm naval rifles have entered Ch ..."

Ben Had: "EdL, I am going to say NO on this ..."

RI Red : "Boss, I’m sure Rancher Bob and Cow Horse Que ..."

Aetius451AD work phone: ">We are supposed to deny a sale if the prospective ..."

Anna Puma: "They never specify what is 'intolerant' but even t ..."

Reforger: "There shouldn't be any heat generated from the imp ..."

Bertram Cabot, Jr.: "Imagine a thousand year reich. ..."

GWB: "Thanks for the Thread, Weasel! (Some particularly ..."

Ed L: "Thanks for hosting, Weasel! ..."

Ed L: "Email me if you would like to discuss. Posted by: ..."

Bloggers in Arms
Some Humorous Asides
Archives